2A Question...

I see what you did there. The downside to your post is that freedom of speech isn't killing kids in classrooms or people in movie theaters.

Isn't it? How many of these mass shooters were loners who hung out on boards like 4chan? Isis recruits heavily through online. Don't we have an increase of white nationalists due to them finding others that share their beliefs online?
 
It kinda is.

2A allows one to buy weapons like James Holmes bought and used to kill a lot of people, or Stephen Paddock used in his massacre.

The 2A doesn't tell people to go commit a mass murder, but it allows the people who commit these crimes the ability to buy the weapons they use.
RIP to the victims. Not sure what that has to do with my and every other law abiding citizens rights though. What makes you arrogant enough to think you get to negotiate another mans natural rights away?
 
There is a specific way to address the issue of the 2A and any desires to remove or alter it. None of the current end runs around it are that method.

Politicians allow it to be chipped away rather than go the route of potential career suicide to have it stripped or "officially" neutered by Congress.

SCOTUS has had plenty of opportunities to address this issue but have also been cowards on the subject for far too long.
 
Fucking lol.

"HELLO FELLOW HUMANS, I TOO LIKE OTHER HUMANS JUST LIKE ME LOVE FIREARMS AND ALL THE WONDERFUL NUANCES THEREIN. BY THE WAY, SHOULDN'T WE GET RID OF GUNS AND ABOLISH THE LAWS THAT PROTECT YOU"
 
Last edited:
And why do people think that an amendment written 200 years ago, before "assault rifles", mass shootings, high capacity magazines (etc.) is the only argument they need?
Because it was expressively written to ensure that the American people for all time would have the means to defend themselves against an oppressive government. You're not going to be able to do that with a dirty old musket.
And don't give me the old "but the US could never become oppressive against it's own people" because I'm pretty sure that the Jews in Germany said the same thing about their country in the early 1900's.

Besides, the last mass shooting I heard of was the one in Thailand, where a soldier used real assault weapons (not some semi auto sporting rifles) to slaughter civilians. Because they were unarmed and helpless. If anything, that convinces me that civilians need more powerful weapons, not less powerful, and that everyone should own them.
 
No silly rabbit, we get it just fine.

You are the one who is struggling to understand. Like many Americans today even, you don't understand that you are a free human being. Liberty is our nature, our birthright. There may come a time when a man must enact violence to preserve that freedom, and to do so he must be well armed. This ammendment is a reminder (to the government) of that inalienable right. You have the right to defend yourself and protect yourself and to protect your ability to live as a free human, by any means necessary, if need be.

The 2A doesn't protect mass shooters. Every argument you are raising against the 2A in this thread isn't really one against the 2A because you don't actually understand what the ammendment means, and who/what it is actually intended for. Perhaps that is because of your allegiance to the queen. Idk.

Hope this helps.

I am struggling to understand how words on a piece of paper from 200 years ago is the blanket answer.

Unfortunately it doesn't help. Name calling and assuming I'm one of those "damn red coats" just makes anything else you said worthless. Try having a normal discussion without resulting to assumptions and insults.

Isn't it? How many of these mass shooters were loners who hung out on boards like 4chan? Isis recruits heavily through online. Don't we have an increase of white nationalists due to them finding others that share their beliefs online?

Words don't pull triggers, people do.

RIP to the victims. Not sure what that has to do with my and every other law abiding citizens rights though. What makes you arrogant enough to think you get to negotiate another mans natural rights away?

"Arrogant" = rustled.

I made a post asking questions, not to troll, yet here you are with your rustled Jim Jams.

There is a specific way to address the issue of the 2A and any desires to remove or alter it. None of the current end runs around it are that method.

Politicians allow it to be chipped away rather than go the route of potential career suicide to have it stripped or "officially" neutered by Congress.

SCOTUS has had plenty of opportunities to address this issue but have also been cowards on the subject for far too long.

This is what is happening in Canada. They keep passing more and lore restrictive laws, but we don't have a 2A to fall back on, so it's quite easy for the government to do.

Fucking lol.

"HELLO FELLOW HUMANS, I TOO LIKE OTHER HUMANS JUST LIKE ME LOVE FIREARMS AND ALL THE WONDERFUL NUANCES THEREIN. BY THE WAY, SHOULDN'T WE GET RID OF GUNS AND ABOLISH THE LAWS THAT PROTECT YOU"

Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit. I never once said "we should get rid of guns". Sorry for trying to have a civilized discussion on a message board, I should have known better.

Continue being rustled.
 
Words don't pull triggers, people do.

You're so, so close to awareness that's its the people's fault and not the gun or any other intimate object. But yet still think restricting guns is what's needed?
 
No wonder you guys are killing each other at record rates.
The fact it was written 200+ years ago when mass shootings weren't happening literally every week ?
It was written 200+ years ago before weekly mass shootings, that's why. I'm pretty sure people also have rights not to get murdered at Sandy Hook, Columbine, a movie theater in Colorado or a military base in Texas, among many others.
Well, those tragedies are horrible, but we are not killing each other at record rates.
murderrate-2017.png


The 2A is written in way which allows the citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. The clause about a milita being necessary refers to the people; back in the day the term militia meant basically "all the people."
So the idea of the 2A is that if the government has the weaponry then it should be legal for the citizenry to own it as well. How would you defeat a tyrannical government of today if the citizens were only allowed to carry muskets? Where would the cut off be in terms of what weapons the citizens (or militia) can own versus what the government can own? Who would make that call...the government right? Well, if you look at our politicians today they are talking about taking away everything outside of single-shot rifles and shotguns. That would make the citizens completely noncompetitive against a much more well armed government. But what happens if we just let them take everything outside of single shot rifles and shotguns? How long would it be before they would want those as well? Who's going to stop them? I'm not trying to get all crazy here but it's a simple check and balance of government power.
There's a reason that communists dictators take the weapons away from the people...especially the plebs.
And as @usmctanker242 points out, the point of the 2A has nothing to do with crime rates. I would argue that I should have a right to defend me and mine from criminals by the most expedient means, but the real reason is the government. As a young man, I used to argue with "the gun nuts". "Why do you need an AK-47 to hunt?" "No one needs to have a rifle with 15 rounds." and so on. What changed my mind was a book about medieval Europe. Armored, sword wielding knights taking what they wanted from a populace that was not permitted to arm itself to the same degree. I then applied this to the origins of some of the martial arts. Yeah, it's cool to fight with sticks, pitch forks, and bo staves, but they did it because they weren't permitted to have swords. prima nocta, mass starvation, and crushing poverty for the masses was based on arms for only the few.
 
Good grief.

More people are murdered in Chicago every year with handguns than all the "mass shootings" in America combined.

I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago topped it in less than 6 months.
 
Last edited:
I am struggling to understand how words on a piece of paper from 200 years ago is the blanket answer.
Words don't pull triggers, people do.
.

This is just a hyperbole statement that does nothing to help your argument. This is on par with that stupid "think of the children" talking point by fat ugly liberal moms.

And don't insult our intelligence. You're not a proponent of the 2A and don't act like your are. Grow some balls and just come at us with your anti-gun bullshit without that. You'll get more respect that way, even though you're from a country that is only known for hockey and re-electing a PM that wore blackface 3 times.
 
2A was added in 1791, that's over 200 years ago. The Gatling Gun wasn't invented until 1862, almost 100 years later, so unless I'm ignorant about a certain type of gun from the 1790s-1860s period, there were no very rapid firing / automatic type weapons around at that time, at least comparable to what is available today. If I'm wrong here, please let me know.
You're wrong on this point.

This was Thomas Jefferson's favorite rifle. It's a repeating .41 caliber rifle with a 22 shot capacity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

He loaned two of these rifles to the Lewis and Clark expedition. That expedition would have likely failed if not for the high capacity and faster rate of fire of those rifles.

The founders were perfectly well aware of high capacity arms with a higher rate of fire.

The idea that they didn't is a myth perpetuated by the historically ignorant.

Also, early variants of the gatling gun were invented in 1712 known as the "Puckle gun".

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014...o-was-the-first-to-invent-the-rapid-fire-gun/

With this said, how do you feel the founding fathers would have written the 2A knowing the issues that mass shootings are causing, especially in the US ?
At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, it was perfectly legal for an American citizen to own a fully armed warship capable of leveling entire coastal cities.

Remember the advice of Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

Given the fact they were already well aware of and privately owned high capacity arms with high rates of fire, I'm confident in saying they wouldn't trade in essential liberty for a false feeling of security.

And why do people think that an amendment written 200 years ago, before "assault rifles", mass shootings, high capacity magazines (etc.) is the only argument they need ?
Rights are the necessary conditions of one's proper existence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rights are an absolute value. You can't trade a little bit away, or barter a little bit of your rights away. You're rights are either being respected or violated.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant any rights, it enshrines into law a natural right we all have.

When I read comments on news sites, forums and the like, I frequently see " the second amendment says...", and that just seems so weird to me considering how much society has changed, and the fact that the founding fathers had no knowledge of what was to come 200 years ahead.

As I've established, the founders knew perfectly well what direction technology was going due to the fact that they personally owned the cutting edge arms of the day.

Glad I could help!
 
In regards to hammers, how many mass hammerings have their been in the history of the United States ? How many deaths were caused ? Why mention just hammers ?

I believe hammers are often cited as a weapon because they were the preferred weapon of choice of the American biker gang known as the "Hells Angels".
 
This is just a hyperbole statement that does nothing to help your argument. This is on par with that stupid "think of the children" talking point by fat ugly liberal moms.

And don't insult our intelligence. You're not a proponent of the 2A and don't act like your are. Grow some balls and just come at us with your anti-gun bullshit without that. You'll get more respect that way, even though you're from a country that is only known for hockey and re-electing a PM that wore blackface 3 times.

Do I need to link the YouTube video of me shooting an Uzi on full auto ? How about the one of me shooting a 1911A1 ?

Do you think an "anti gun" "non 2A proponent" would go to a gun range and shoot guns all day like I did ?

Lol @ pretending you know me and being as wrong as possible.

Jim-Jams are rustled I see.

Try not getting so enraged over a post trying to understand a blanket answer for a pretty large problem. Don't worry, I'm not coming for your guns.
 
I'm sure there it lots of online content available anywhere in the west, but what you are describing doesn't exist.

If someonw only values life as much as 2oz of lead that not the gun's fault.

The US is pretty much safer than it's ever been. If you take suicides out of the equation gun deaths drop significantly. Very few are killed by rifles every year, even fewer by shotguns. Most murders, the majority, are committed with handguns and by the poorest segments of society and gangbangers. Culture & education is the problem, guns are just a tool.
I think you missed the point of my post. There are multiple factors at play and it is important to identify them and address them all effectively where possible. A couple of those factors are the prevalence and availability of guns and extremely weak and inconsistent gun laws, regardless of whether you can identify others.

And sure, I understand the crime rate has been declining for a long time; I'm not an alarmist in that respect. I just don't think that's an excuse to dismiss the potential to reduce unnecessary deaths and take no action. People need to open their minds and realize there are multiple ways to contribute to solving complex societal problems. That doesn't mean leftists want to take away your guns.
 
I've noticed not one defender of the 2A has answered how well their M4 will work against an Apache with a 30mm cannon and Hellfire missiles.

Some of the posts here advocate the 2A as their right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. However, I don't see how Joe with his deer hunting M4 is going to do much against an M1 Abrams, or an Apache or a drone hovering around waiting to rain death.

Should someone be allowed to own a TOW anti tank missile ? How about MANPADs like Stingers ? Why or why not?

Again, for the people with rustled jim jams, I'm trying to understand your view of things here, no need to rage.
 
Because it was expressively written to ensure that the American people for all time would have the means to defend themselves against an oppressive government. You're not going to be able to do that with a dirty old musket.
And don't give me the old "but the US could never become oppressive against it's own people" because I'm pretty sure that the Jews in Germany said the same thing about their country in the early 1900's.

Besides, the last mass shooting I heard of was the one in Thailand, where a soldier used real assault weapons (not some semi auto sporting rifles) to slaughter civilians. Because they were unarmed and helpless. If anything, that convinces me that civilians need more powerful weapons, not less powerful, and that everyone should own them.
Do you agree or disagree that there are options in the middle between the status quo and "take all the guns" in terms of gun laws that could help reduce intentional and/or accidental death?
 
I've noticed not one defender of the 2A has answered how well their M4 will work against an Apache with a 30mm cannon and Hellfire missiles.

Some of the posts here advocate the 2A as their right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. However, I don't see how Joe with his deer hunting M4 is going to do much against an M1 Abrams, or an Apache or a drone hovering around waiting to rain death.

Should someone be allowed to own a TOW anti tank missile ? How about MANPADs like Stingers ? Why or why not?

Again, for the people with rustled jim jams, I'm trying to understand your view of things here, no need to rage.
Isnt there some authority who's boots you could be shining right now over in your country, subject?
 
Back
Top