Is the 2nd amendment dangerous ?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 13, 2004, 5:13 pm

... to those who choose to exercise it.

To put into context -
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... r_shooting

Ransure · Post by **Ransure** » October 13, 2004, 5:14 pm

That multimillionaire was a fucking idiot... You dont discharge a weapon when law enforcement is trying to contain a situation.

Tegellan · Post by **Tegellan** » October 13, 2004, 5:20 pm

That guy deserved to be fucking shot for being criminally stupid, seriously.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 13, 2004, 5:24 pm

Natural selection at work.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 13, 2004, 5:30 pm

And replace guns with walkie talkies, force people to wear helmets and have agents hold their hands on the way to work? Fuck that shit. I will keep my guns. Those anti-gun bleeding heart crybabies can go suck a dick.

This Camat guy was a fucking idiot. Dying via firearm was just a merry coincidence. He could just as easily have died in a paper-shredder accident if he is dumb enough to go firing a gun in public.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 5:36 pm

Respectfully, Animalor, this isn't a good example of the problems with the second amendment (which I still believe has a place in this country). The man in question was quite obviously illegally carrying a concealed weapon, illegally discharging the weapon, and stupid enough to be brandishing the said weapon when law enforcement officers were present. His final and perhaps life-ending act of stupidity was to even give said law enforcement officers the notion that he was pointing the gun anywhere in their general direction.

This guy got exactly what he deserved.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 13, 2004, 5:53 pm

In Arizona, you go to jail for firing a gun into the air for a substantial amount of time.

That guy may have been headed to the slammer for discharging a gun into the air anyway. Depends on individual state laws.

Shannon's Law

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 13, 2004, 5:59 pm

I'm not particularly well versed in your constitution. I pretty much just posted this because it seemed to me that if he wasn't carrying that weapon, then we would most likely still be alive today(stupid decisions non-withstanding).

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 6:07 pm

Well the fact that he had the weapon wasn't really the problem. It was the other things I mentioned. Lets say there were 50 patrons at the bar, and any number of patrons > 1 was a gun owner, but only one of them was illegally carrying concealed/illegally brandishing/illegally discharging hiw weapon AND might have pointed it toward police. The second amendment isn't really the issue.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 13, 2004, 8:42 pm

I think we should have the right to have guns. It keeps our ability to defend ourselves against oppressive govt' if the need should occur.

But instead, let's look at the wording of the second ammendment.

I'll paraphrase a bit because I don't know it off the top of my head exactly.

'In order to secure a well regulated militia...the right to bear arms.'

Bear arms huh?

Now how helpful is a set of Ursine appendages for militia?

Well, ok fine, arms...What kind of arms? All kinds of arms? Remember that a sword and bow and arrow is also considered 'arms.' And notice the part about militia in there. So only for militia?

-=Lohrno

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 13, 2004, 10:17 pm

A militia is created by a gathering of the people, or civilians. To have an effective militia the people have to have guns. Clearly this also justifies assault rifles just because you know the bad guys have em, so why not be prepared!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 14, 2004, 2:07 am

The way that I look at that whole situation is this:
The people that would do dumb shit like in that article, or gangs and other shit like that, do now, and will continue to have guns reguardless of what the law says.

So if you regulate it very carefully by doing background checks to get your conceal carry permit and to get the gun, then I think it is ok. Other people who might actually get the permit and do something stupid, well put it this way, if they didn't have the gun to do dumb shit with they would find another medium.

That is my opinion anyhow.

Proctus · Post by **Proctus** » October 14, 2004, 3:49 am

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 14, 2004, 7:12 am

Rekaar. wrote:A militia is created by a gathering of the people, or civilians. To have an effective militia the people have to have guns. Clearly this also justifies assault rifles just because you know the bad guys have em, so why not be prepared!

Militias are maintained by the states...The National Guard are our militias...

Fyndina · Post by **Fyndina** » October 14, 2004, 1:30 pm

Stupid people die in stupid ways everyday, guns or no guns....

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » October 14, 2004, 1:37 pm

I think the second amendment - like many amendments - needs to be reworded and edited to fit our times..

But I don't particularly think its dangerous as long as we have a President and administration willing to uphold gun laws and make sure that bans such as the ban on assault weapons doesn't fall through stay in place...

Oh fuck...we don't have any of that...

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 14, 2004, 1:43 pm

The so-called assault weapons ban was fucking retarded and deservedly dropped out of effect.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » October 14, 2004, 1:44 pm

Yeah because making sure TERRORISTS don't have easy access to assault weapons and making sure CRIMINALS don't have easy access to assault weapons and making sure that our POLICE don't have to DEAL with assault weapons out in the field....is so retarded

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » October 14, 2004, 2:11 pm

That problem had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, which is merely the outer limits of what is allowed. Congress, as well as each state, has the right to impose regulations as defining the "right to bear arms". While idiot lottery boy's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, the manner in which he did in this case was illegal. There is a difference between a constitutional right and the constraints on it enforced by state and federal law.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 14, 2004, 2:29 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:I think the second amendment - like many amendments - needs to be reworded and edited to fit our times..

But I don't particularly think its dangerous as long as we have a President and administration willing to uphold gun laws and make sure that bans such as the ban on assault weapons doesn't fall through stay in place...

Oh fuck...we don't have any of that...

Exactly my point. It's too vague. 'Arms' also includes ICBMs, etc. or if you interpret it in the only way you can exactly, it makes no sense. The first ammendment needs this too. "Congress shall make no law..." The intent is clear, but it leaves it open for other bodies to make laws regarding that. The thing is you can't reword them now because if the GOPers(and some Dems) have a major hand in it, they'll just abolish it.

The second ammendment either makes it okay for militias to have EVERYTHING, or it's so vague that it might as well not be non-existant.

Saying you (which btw is how most people interpret it. It says to secure militias...) have the right to bear arms but making laws restricting it is like having a constitutional ammendment that gives you the right to consume substances. Some substances are obviously illegal (like drugs), and some are obviously necessary like water. So if you make an ammendment to give us the right to consume substances, it basically is totally useless, or you can interpret it that all drugs are now okay.

-=Lohrno

Neost · Post by **Neost** » October 14, 2004, 2:33 pm

This is probably the one area that I disagree with Democrats the most, being what I consider middle-of-the-road on a political spectrum.

The assault weapons ban was a farce to make it look to the public like something was being done about rampant gun crime.

There were plenty of laws on the books pre-ban to take care of anyone who illegally obtained these weapons but instead of enforcing those laws congress passed more.

I'm not arguing that assault weapons are something that just anyone should be allowed to own but the licensing requirements for weapons considered to be "assault weapons" are stringent enough that not just anybody can walk in off the street and buy an uzi or ak-47.

The assault weapon ban didn't stop any criminals or anyone who would've skated around the laws from obtaining fully automatic weapons. All it did was make it illegal for someone who will abide by the law from owning them.

And think of it this way. Vehicles that can exceed the speed limit are dangerous. All vehicles that are capable of going over the maximum speed limit should be banned because someone might run them down the road faster than they should and possibly kill people. Or a criminal could use them to outrun law enforcement. It might not be an apples to apples analogy but you get the idea.

Just like car enthusiasts would be up in arms over such a ban, gun enthusiasts don't like being restricted because someone breaks the law with the object of their interest.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 14, 2004, 2:56 pm

Fesuni. Yes, the laws were completely retarded. Pre-ban magazines were available quite easily for just about anything, especially your 7.62 and .223 variety rounds--for the entire duration of the ban. The laws were silly, like banning folding stocks and pistol grips. See, these things made rifles 'look' more assault-like.

And believe me, these laws had like 0 effect for terrorists and criminals, except maybe a slight increase in black market price. If you want completely rediculous gun laws, move to California--they take the cake for stupid laws.

All Clinton did was appease the anti-firearm people by banning accessories and driving the proce of certain rifles and handguns up. It was a hollow set of laws and them not being around anymore is not going to change a damn thing.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » October 14, 2004, 2:57 pm

I use harsh language in lieu of a firearm. I think that is a different amendment.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 14, 2004, 3:30 pm

In a situation like this, I drop my pants and start doing the cabbage pants in my manties.

Sup seebs)

p.s.
if you believe this law acutally does anything to keep assult rifles away from terrorists and criminals, you are severely misguided.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 14, 2004, 3:38 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:Yeah because making sure TERRORISTS don't have easy access to assault weapons and making sure CRIMINALS don't have easy access to assault weapons and making sure that our POLICE don't have to DEAL with assault weapons out in the field....is so retarded

You have absolutely zero idea what that "assault weapons" ban actually detailed. The uninformed public is the reason they pass dumbass laws like that ban. If you wanted to truly do something that would make a difference, then put pressure on the courts to actually put the criminals away and stop letting them out.

You do realize that if they put the criminals behind bars that there would be no murders with firearms?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 14, 2004, 3:54 pm

Guns don't kill people, I do!

Badabidi · Post by **Badabidi** » October 14, 2004, 6:04 pm

masteen wrote:Guns don't kill people, I do!

That cracks me up everytime

You forgot HAHA!!

VeeshanVault

Is the 2nd amendment dangerous ?

Do you think the right to bear arms should still exist?

Is the 2nd amendment dangerous ?