HOME | DD
Balddog4 — 2nd Amendment
Published: 2012-12-24 17:31:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 6849; Favourites: 121; Downloads: 47
Redirect to original
Description
I love this Amendment. In fact I love all of the amendments. However, I love this one because it allows us to own weapons that the government have. So I can buy a tank if I want and the government can't do anything about it. Because the 2nd amendment states that I can. Now I would love to own guns, for one reason only; To protect my family. Other than that, I wouldn't use guns for any other purpose. I might go hunting, but that depends.But I support the 2nd amendment 100% and I hate gun bans. Because if everyone is armed and allowed to carry assult weapons around where ever they go, then people wouldn't go out and shoot other people. Because then they might get shot themselves. That's why gin bans DO NOT WORK! Because all they do is allow lawless people to do whatever they want. So that is why we can not allow gun bans.
Related content
Comments: 391
Actually since then my opinion has changed.
I think it should be hard for people to own guns, but possible if they can absolutely prove that they will look after them and aren't a threat.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
More gun laws just make it HARDER for law biding citizens to defend themselves. More gun laws make it EASIER for criminals to do their business. I agree,certain people should not have a gun at all. (I.E. people who have a history of mental illness,people that are repeat offenders,people that are on a watch list,etc.) I think training needs to be MANDATORY for anyone looking to buy a gun,even if you know the gun inside and out.
Education may prove to be the way to deter or lessen gun crimes. If people are taught that guns are not toys,and forced to undergo training with each purchase,that might wake some people up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Hidden by Commenter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
"I think training needs to be MANDATORY for anyone looking to buy a gun,even if you know the gun inside and out. "
- I agree.
I think guns should be hard to get because really people in general ARE idiots, whether you like to accept that fact or not, it's true. People are stupid and will vote for the worst of candidates, will let their 4 year old children play with real guns and will wave them around in anger or as jokes. :/
Guns shouldn't be easy for any old idiot to get. Only those that are actually trustworthy and responsible should be allowed have guns.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I take it that you are a Clinton fan. I agree people for the most part are fairly stupid. That is what the training should address,things that are supposed to be common sense,lock up your gun,teach your kids not to touch them,not wave your gun around. You should only have your gun out in the open if you are to use it to defend yourself,hunt,being cleaned and maintained,show it off (unloaded of course),or use it on an approved target.
I am just saying that the answer is not more laws to restrict guns. We have more than enough laws and there are places that criminals are taking full advantage of it. Detroit for instance. It is hard for a normal,everyday citizen to get a gun. Add to that the police there are very ineffective and you have a paradise for thugs and ne'er do wells.
When everyone is armed,criminals will flee. They know that if everyone has a gun,their "job" just got a lot more dangerous. Switzerland is a country that every male is required to serve in the military,when their service is done,they are to keep their weapons. And yet,they have a low crime rate. As I said education will be the key,not new gun laws.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A Clinton fan! XD XD XD
I HATE Clinton. I desperately wanted Trump to win just so that Hillary would not. I hope that b*tch goes to prison for life! 
Anyhow, when everyone is armed, kids can grab a gun and shoot up a school. Drunken rage becomes far more dangerous. Suicidal people have the easiest means of doing it.
I do think that you have a good point, but really not everyone should be allowed them. It's not just a matter of education. If people have anger issues, or are mentally unstable, or have kids that could take their guns there's always the possibility of something pretty bad happening. I think that most towns will have responsible people with guns under a system where it's hard to get a gun.
But if it's easier to get a gun than to get into college, that's a pretty big problem. :/
It's a tough issue. Be too lax and people will kill each other. Be too strict and criminals will kill people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I am sorry for the insult then. I hate Clinton and I hope Trump changes his mind to prosecute Clinton. I agree the gun control issue is not an easy one,but it was far easier to get guns way back when and you never really heard of this shit happening. Well,college is a bit of a tradition,investment,and it is furthering a person's education and worth. A gun is just a tool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't feel insulted! 
Colleges help. They educate. They prepare. Guns... they're used for what? Killing? Injury? Threatening? Damage?
It's sad that people should want let alone need such tools.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Guns are tools,nothing more.
They can be used to save a life as well as take a life.
The world is not perfect and some of our most dangerous weapons came out of an attempt to stop war. The submarine and the machine gun come to mind. As long as there are people that want to harm others with a gun,there must be guns for people to defend themselves. The police ARE NOT the answer,they just gather information after a robbery or murder.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Except most tools aren't created and designed with the explicit purpose of killing and damaging.
But, yes I agree it is a tool.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Anything can be used to bring harm.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But a pencil/tree branch/kettle/fork is not designed intentionally to bring harm. That is the difference.
Otherwise, by your logic, I could say that we can give nuclear bombs to civilians. They're only tools.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now nukes and guns are two completely different things. Guns you can go plinking with. You can hunt with them. You can practice your marksmanship with them. You can defend yourself if needed whether it would be pistol whipping,rifle butting,or shooting. Nukes were designed to be a deterrent and a weapon of last resort.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They're both weapons. You're holding a double standard.
Guns should be used as "a deterrent and a weapon of last resort" when dealing with people.
I understand using them for self defence against animals in certain regions though.
I have mixed feelings on gun ownership tbh. Whatever the rules, I'd certainly never have one in my house.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes,they are both weapons. But one only kills a few while the other kills millions and sickens even more.
A gun is only a bad thing when a bad person uses it. Of course most people have no wish to pull the trigger to end someone's life. But if it is either a criminal or me,the criminal dies. Look,we all have our view on a gun. I was always taught to only point a gun at someone only if I had to and only if I intended to defend myself.
A criminal will use whatever he can to inflict harm. I am just using whatever I can to defend myself. And some people just need killing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most people are "bad people" when in a position of power that the gun offers. :/
"I was always taught to only point a gun at someone only if I had to and only if I intended to defend myself." - I can respect that!
"And some people just need killing." - I cannot in good conscience agree with that. I think that people like Hillary, for example, absolutely depraved criminals, still deserve to life, albeit it in a prison cell.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like the old saying of "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Only if that person was weak minded,stupid,or quick to anger.
Thank you. I do not point a gun at anyone or anything without reason.
I cannot agree with that. She is a monster,plain and simple. Some people are either serving a very long term or life and that is a huge waste of resources. That could be used to help people,educate kids,pay down debt,etc...
I am not completely heartless. Now if the person was doing time for a violent crime and/or was a repeat offender or high risk of one,give them an automatic appeal,and when they lose,take them out back,put a slug in their head and call it a day. In Hilary's case,she is a danger to America. Put her down like the bitch she is.
The death penalty for most states is lethal injection. And I do not know if you have heard but there is a shortage of the drugs and they are very,very,expensive. A bullet is much cheaper and if you need another round,it is nowhere near the cost of the drug.
Maybe I just like it simple. And if you want to eliminate the problem of firing the fatal shot,either rig a machine to do it or randomize several weapons,one with the real bullets and the others with blanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you're willing to breach her right to life, then (and of course this is hypothetical) how about instead of killing prisoners like that instead their brains are rewired with neurosurgery and drugs so that they won't be harmful to society? 
Also, I'm strongly against the death penalty because of all the innocent people who end up there. That's the main reason why we should never kill. If we're wrong and someone is innocent, then we've become murderers and torturers of an innocent life.
These criminals, they deserve time to reflect on their actions. In a sense death is too merciful, but also it's inhumane. No-one should have to die. Besides, killing such criminals is essentially stooping down to their level.
Just my thoughts anyhow.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay,our brain surgery is nowhere near advanced enough to alter a person's thinking to a specific way. Maybe donate them to science for experiments.
Yes,innocent people can end up on death row. And yes,innocent people have been executed. But if you have lost 20 years in prison,you would pray for death.
They can reflect on their actions,but most are unrepentant. I can agree,in a way,it is merciful that they get a quick exit. But they are just wastes of life and resources that could be better allocated somewhere else.
Think of me what you will,but once someone becomes a criminal,they are of no use to society other than cheap labor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If I lost 20 years in prison, I'd beg for life. A real life. Death reduces the chances of achieving happiness ever again to 0% so it's not an option.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If I was in prison for 20 years,I would want to be dead.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I do not hold people, yourself included, in such low regards.
You misunderstand the 2nd Amendment, it's primary purpose is to allow the American people to defend themselves against the Government, secondary purpose is to allow for hunting and self-defense.
Having a gun ban does not directly relate to the crime rate, just because law abiding citizens can't get guns doesn't mean crime will be less. Correlation does not mean causation. Also gun laws didn't stop Paris or Brussels, but it did allow the terrorists to go unchallenged. Terrorists aside, criminals will still seek to do crime, in common crime if guns are not available I doubt the criminal(s) will take extraordinary steps to obtain them, they'll more likely use a knife or a blunt object or even just their fists.
I agree with you that having an unprotected target rich environment is a bad idea and inviting criminals. However if you are insinuating the majority of police are corrupt or racist or in some other way bad people I must disagree with you, if that were the case we'd see far far more incidents of that in America.
I do not live in such fear, nor do I know anyone who does. For the number of guns that are in America, it is an extraordinarily few that are used in crimes, and of those the majority were obtained illegally.
This seems to come down to how much we trust our fellow man, it appears you do not trust people very much, however I trust the majority of people to have and exercise good judgement the majority of the time, this includes you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've not had much faith in humanity recently.
The difference between a knife and a gun is that you're far more likely to survive being stabbed than being shot.
My trust in people has definitely dwindled over the years... I personally wouldn't trust people to have good judgement.
I used to have housemates who were victims of police brutality, and a relative's friend was arrested for a broken shop window although she was innocent and walking by when the incident occurred, and then was basically denied her career in childcare because of a conviction she should never have gotten.
And the kinds of people hired to be police often seem to be the aggressive type. As for people in general, in my experience they often litter when there are bins nearby, most can't drive a car safely (and I'm lucky my parents can actually drive, because they've had to avoid all sorts of stupid drivers on the road who nearly got us killed, one just the other day driving fast on the wrong side of he road round a bend), make stupid life choices that they deeply regret, buying expensive things that they never use, are reckless with alcohol, get mortgages that last their whole lives and spend life in debt... And so many Americans are voting for Trump. If that offensive racist bully is allowed become president, global politics are going to tense. Hopefully he's only all talk.
I could go on to a whole list of acts of human stupidity and ignorance, but basically put, I don't trust people to make good decisions.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I am sorry to hear about your friends, that is a terrible tragedy.
I cannot speak for the Police officers in Ireland, nor do I blame you for your lack of faith in humanity, it is easy to lose that faith in this modern age. With instant telecommunication around the world and the news media the way it is people get to hear about all the dumb and horrible thing people around the world do, but the stories of good things people do don't circulate as much. Smart people will do dumb things, that is just human nature, with what you have written I'm going to assume you're a smart person, I won't ask for specific examples, but have you ever done anything that you look back on and go "that was dumb"? I know I have plenty of those instances.
I'll ease your worry about Trump a little, currently he's only getting about about 18% of the American population voting for him, on the other hand we also have Hillary Clinton who is running strong and Bernie Sanders hot on her tail....... I think I just dropped your faith in humanity again with that.....
But then again global politics is global politics, what were talking about is local people.
I personally look for patterns, if a person does a stupid thing, then we learn and move on, if they do stupid things constantly then we have something to worry about. I hope what I'm saying makes sense.
God bless you and your family.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They weren't really my friends, I only met them briefly, but I learned a lot in that time from them. The house I lived in was crazy, with all sorts of housemates from all walks of life.
Why does everyone assume I'm smart, I'm not that smart... 
Thanks! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I give people respect until they prove to me they are deserving of none, and I assume people to be smart (not to be confused with genius) until they prove their not.
Regardless of how well you knew them I'm still sorry they went through that, but I'm glad your time with them was mostly positive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Left-wing wants to take this from the people, I won't allow it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Which is why the U.S. has one of the highest gun-death rates in the world.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
60% of American “gun deaths” are suicides and the U.S. has a suicide rate 11% higher than international averages. This accounts for most of the difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
A suicidal person is far more likely to commit suicide if there's a gun in the room than if there's not.
It only takes a second to pull the trigger.
Guns have a weird effect on people in general, as their mere presence can make people want to hold them, test them out, or fire them at least once.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
My friend, that wasn't the point of my post, my post was a response to gun violence.
I take it you don't own a gun, if you did you'd know that your last statement is completely bogus, guns do not have a special and unique effect or compulsion on people, the only desire for use comes from the standard and normal desire to use the things you have, such as your computer or barbecue. Does driving a car compel you to run over pedestrians? Does owning a pool compel you to drown people? Does owning a baseball bat compel you to beat someone up? (BTW you more likely to be assaulted with a blunt object, such as a baseball bat, or unarmed then with a firearm) The statistics don't agree with you.
Stating that guns compel people is intellectually dishonest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pools weren't designed to drown people, bats weren't designed to hit people. Guns are designed to kill animals and people. They are made for the purpose of killing. I'm not saying this desire is with everyone but a suicidal person in a room with a gun is far more likely to kill themselves than someone without a gun. An angry person is far more likely to kill someone with a gun in rage, than if they didn't have any access to a gun.
Just saying.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Once again my commentary is geared towards the topic of this picture, violent crime/the ability to defend ourselves.
Tragic as it is suicidal people who really want to die will find a way, suicide by gun is the most used method, but that only accounts for 50% of the suicides in the US (I'm not sure about Ireland, need to do some research), hanging and poisoning rank #2 and #3.
A person with rage issues/uncontrollable rage will use what's at hand, if a gun is present obviously he'll try for that, but if it isn't that won't stop them from attacking.
Point is in both cases it's the person making a decision, the inanimate object isn't compelling them.
Be well, be safe, and be kind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
At least with poisoning or using a knife (not sure about hanging though) you have much more of a chance to survive the suicide attempt. With a gun it's much more deadly.
Guns have a far more likely chance of killing you than a knife. www.scientificamerican.com/art… www.infoplease.com/ipa/A000488…
A bullet with usually leave an exit wound and will cause lots of damage, while a knife is cleaner and does less damage. Poison can be treated if the person is taken to A and E quick enough, and there is the chance they'll throw it up before it can do damage.
It would make it harder to kill others if guns weren't as accessible, that much is true.
But you're right, it's the person making the decision.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Actually knife wounds are more deadly then gun shot wounds if the victim doesn't die immediately, as you stated knife wounds are cleaner allowing for blood loss to occur much more rapidly, gun shot wounds don't always leave and exit wound and are a much more jagged wound thus blood loss is slower (I have had multiple friends in the medical profession, I am also a military trained combat lifesaver). That article and table just state the weapon of choice, which is not a direct correlation to which weapon is more deadly.
I'm not familiar with A and E, I think you are refering to what Americans call the ER (Emergency Room), please correct me if I am wrong.
Humanity has had little trouble killing each other before guns were invented. Before gun, people used swords, before swords people used rocks, and to this day people use their bare fists. A gun is just a tool, you need to look at the person using the tool.
This is interesting doing some comparisons between America and Ireland.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True. Actually I think you're right.
We have very little gun related crime in Ireland, but there is a lot of knife crime in some parts of Ireland (luckily I don't live near those places).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not familiar with Irelands gun laws, if guns are banned it would make sense that gun violence is less, but has it affected the overall crime rate? Criminals don't have ready access to guns, but their still committing crimes anyway.
I'm glad you've been able to keep yourself safe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Funnily enough, come to think of it, some farmers can have guns here (with a permit)... although I haven't seen them even use them or hold them ever.
I'm starting to see your point. I still think if anyone could have a gun it could be dangerous, but in the hands of fully trustworthy people it shouldn't be a problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree that trained and trustworthy people should be able to have them, training is key though, you need to know how to use them properly. In America anyone who isn't a criminal (and old enough) may own a gun, but to carry concealed in public requires a permit. (handguns only, I'd like to see someone conceal carry a riffle)
Sounds to me like that law is to allow farmers to conduct animal control. (kill predators such as wolves, put down sick livestock, ect)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
for those who are wanting firearms to be banned ((which will NOT happen, because it is EVERYONE'S right to defend themselves...)) i want you to propose a plan on how we can defend ourselves against a criminal who illegally bought a gun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The 2nd Amendment grants the right to operate in a well armed and well regulated militia. We don't have those anymore. We have an extremely armed and unregulated populace that leaves over 30,000 people dead in this country every year. Point of fact every country with a gun ban has the lowest overall crime and homicide rates in the world. Countries without solid gun control the the U.S. see the worst for both statistics. With so much proof refuting the notion that guns keep peace, and the fact that the amendment doesn't even grant the rights you claim it does, I call major BS with this pro-gun stance, as usual with right-wing extremism aka Fascism.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Point of fact, back at the founding of America the "Militia" was every able bodied male regardless of weather you wanted to or not, all militia members were required to keep and maintain their weapon at their homes. Also the "Well regulated" statement is more akin to "well trained" in modern language, how we talk and the meaning of words has shifted since the founding. Lastly, what was this amendment even for? It was primarily to ensure the general populace had the means to resist and fight the government, they had just fought a long and bloody war to free themselves from an oppressive government, they wanted to ensure that the government did not become oppressive, but if it did the people had the means to fight the government.
Question on your source for violent crime statistics; are they just number of people harmed or is it as a percentage in comparison the the population? Reason for the question is that countries with higher populations will naturally be inclined to have higher numbers of violent crimes committed, in fact higher numbers of everything, but as a percentage of the population it may be low. The statistics I'm looking at is by percentage of population, and America is on the lower end, not close to the least, but lower (2-5 homicides per 100,000), The top 100 countries for homicide do not include the U.S, the top ten countries all have near or total firearm bans. The high end includes places like most of South America and Southern Africa (20+ homicides per 100,000).
The bit about countries with gun bans having the least crime is false, many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. In Japan, the total murder rate is almost 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be eliminated, the U.S. would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. To go along with that 60% of American “gun deaths” are suicides and the U.S. has a suicide rate 11% higher than international averages. This accounts for most of the difference in gun related crime.
"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In truth, the Second Amendment was never created for the purpose of arming citizens against the government. The wording there is clear as day, it's not open to interpretation as extremist groups such as the NRA claim it is. It was created strictly for a government-operated militia to defend the new nation from internal rebellion and foreign invasion. To insist the Founding Fathers willingly fostered sentiment and legal permission for an armed rebellion against their own democracy is nothing short of absurd. I am being generous and assuming this is a case of your knowledge in historical fact to be lacking, rather than you voluntarily denying the truth.
I question where you are getting your stats. Mine are from the FBI, the ICD, and the UN, and are individual casualties of gun crime itself. Hard numbers paint a more clear and less obscure picture than ratios. None of the countries with the highest percentage in violent crime and homicides have gun bans, so I must call your information fictitious as a result. The claims countries with gun restrictions or bans alike share in high crime and homicide rates are false. Your claims that England and Australia have some of the highest percentages of robbery, sexual assaults, and assault with force are also false.
Let's put the actual numbers into perspective. Total number of deaths from gun crime alone in the US annually remains increasing at roughly 30,000 to date. Around 192,000 are wounded in gun violence annually. In Great Britain, the annual homicide rate from all forms of criminal violence has not gone over 50, yes 50, total ever since their gun ban. 98-99 total wounded from all forms of criminal violence annually.
On the contrary, Great Britain in general is on the exact opposite list, having a solid place in the top 10 countries with the least crime in general, including homicide. Crime and homicide rates have also steadily dropped in Australia since they banned assault weapons, so your claim the opposite occurred is again, false. I will point out countries with little to no gun control are all on the top 10 of violent crime and homicide, including the US and Switzerland, the latter of which is the "rape and murder capital of Europe". Ever since owning guns became a legal requirement in Switzerland, the sharp increase in violent crime and bodies piling up is well-documented. Current estimates show roughly 1/3 people in Switzerland will be a victim of violent crime at some point in their life, if not more than once assuming they survive the first time.
In the end, I'm not interested in holding a "discussion" with a revisionist who appears to be putting forth a biased far-right extremist political agenda as opposed to absolute and established facts. You can stick to your rhetoric, I'll stick to my research. Good Day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>