@Nanaimo
Don't forget cops would have guns.

omg, guns are not the problem.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
If guns are illegal there will still be gun murders because the murderer doesn't give a shit about what the law says.[\quote]

if we let the government take little pieces of our freedom at a time soon u wont be able to cross state lines without cops strip searching you and worse for the convicted criminals that did miner offensives.

we dont need more laws, we need more strong citizens that know how to handle shit like shootouts. u know why? bcuz its a war a war on ur rights.

Edited 12/8/2015 17:32:21

Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates

u guys see in the news that cops kill innocent people. u dont restrict there laws. In fact ur given police more rights to take away rights.

Cops are not perfect. When they need to make a decision at the pull of a trigger, they might misjudge the situation.

Also, use proper grammar WARLORD.

Cops are not perfect

Could not have said it better myself. The question is what we do about it. BAN COPS??? No obviously not. Look the second amendment is very clear about this issue.

Second Amendment: 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.

A) Purpose of this amendment - secure the military means for which the citizenry can rebel against their federal government. A civilian population without firearms would have absolutely no way to combat government tyranny.

B) "well regulated militia" - This does not mean the federal government has permission to regulate guns. The entity they indicate should regulate the militia of private citizens are the states, since by definition it is an extra-political organization. If the federal government were to regulate or control a militia it would be synonymous to a standing army, which the framers were completely against. State laws that regulate firearms are legal. Federal laws that regulate firearms are unconstitutional.

C) "Bear arms". Since no precise definition of arms is explained we must give benefit of the doubt to the right of the citizen. Historians often argue that the Constitution was a living document (looked to the future). Since this is the argument, we must assume that the framers understood technological advance and were content with the citizenry being able to buy and keep any type of gun (automatic, semi-automatic, hand held, military grade, etc).

D) "Shall not be infringed". This is self-explanatory. No federal law can be created that restricts the purchase or freedom of movement of guns. This means that any regulations that target specific types of guns are illegal. This also means that laws that prevent free citizens from carrying guns in public or private places is unconstitutional.

^Great, I am looking forward to the nuke/bio/chemical guns. According to the wonderful constitution I am allowed to have them :)

Not if the state you live in bans them ;)


See there are rules and regulations. I completely agree with background checks and not giving guns to the mentally unstable. I also agree with sensible restrictions on the types of gun possessions. The only thing I'm trying to say is that the federal government can't do it. Only the states have the constitutional and legal authority to regulate guns. Is there something so radical or crazy in that??

The problem is that in many people's opinion the states are not doing their job regulating the guns. Also crossing state borders is not particularly hard, which is why many argue for Federal regulations. (Since making your state regulate guns, may be easily circumvented by buying in the neighboring state.)

Edited 12/9/2015 02:40:11

im not against guns, im against any random idiot being able to carry guns anywhere near me. prove to me you are not going to accidentally shoot me, or shoot me cause i look at you the wrong way, and i will accept you and your gun's presence near me. if you can whip out a certification saying you are professionally trained to handle crisis situations with a firearm i will shake your hand and thank you for your service.

you may have a right to defend yourself against a tyrannical gubment (good luck doing that with a gun anyway), you may have a right to protect yourself in your home, but you don't have a right to EVER turn a public space into a shoot out. i have a right to safety just as much as Joe Gun Nut, and that right is being infringed because vigilante idiots with violent fantasies feel the need to strut around in wal-mart with their surrogate cocks at their hip.

we don't want to take away your guns (unless you are a criminal. are you a criminal?) we know that more gun regulations aren't going to magically end all gun deaths, but we do think it will greatly reduce them. everyone (nearly everyone anyway) in the gun rights/2nd amendment/NRA camp always exaggerates the threat to their gun rights, creating a boogeyman for them to easily beat. the tone of the gun debate is so absurd that arguing your side is a sisyphean task. the gun rights crowd has effectively won the argument by being the dumbest, loudest, and most extremist voice. gg.

This also means that laws that prevent free citizens from carrying guns in public or private places is unconstitutional.

Respectfully, no. The following is copy/pasted from the Supreme Court's ruling in DC vs. Heller:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The Second Amendment is not a free pass to "absolutely no infringing whatsoever". It's an assurance that weapons for self defense will be legal for law abiding citizens to own and carry. This does NOT mean that every available weapon has to be made legal to carry. Also, you cannot possibly argue that the framers "looked to the future and were and were content with it" That's like saying Jesus was looking to the future when he taught, so he must have been content with the Christian terrorist groups that have been operating in Africa. I think the Biblical Jesus, at any rate, might have had problems with them, but that is a discussion for another thread.

lets all be together and defend or country

+infinity, shyb.

The truth is nobody should have guns. The only reason someone would have guns is too kill someone or something. Anyone carrying guns should be arrested for conspiracy. There's no other reason to have a gun.

Such like that there's no other reasons besides killing by owning grenades, tanks, protective armor etc.

Shut up and fund the Trigger so we can just disable all carbon-based explosives and live in peace.

what happens when the government makes it legal for federal officials to enter ur house without a warrant.

If the second amendment can't apply to semi-automatic rifles , pistols as such why does the first apply to the internet, radio and television?

^ +infinity