HOME | DD
Balddog4 — 2nd Amendment
Published: 2012-12-24 17:31:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 6852; 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
My information and facts comes from the founding fathers documents, the respective countries governments, and the UN, so much for rhetoric.
I have tried, I can do no more, it is obvious we will never agree, and I for one refuse to name call.
I wish you all the best in life my friend, be safe and my God bless you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This outdated amendment only makes sense if your talking about the American Revolutionary War of Independence, or the current modern Ukrainian-Russian War where this would have helped those Ukrainian people/partisans properly defend themselves from a douchebag invading aggressors!
Or... From a local government that has grown too large and powerful and has been thoroughly corrupted to the point of no return that might becomes right!
Other than that it's outdated idea that was made with only the 18th century understandings of weapons and political perspectives, but that serves no real tangible purpose in modern times due to advances in technology and logistics Buuut.....to enrich weapons and defence companies!
And one important fact, when one glorifies weapons or their use! Things get ugly real fast!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The 2nd Amendment was primarily to ensure the general populace had the means to resist and fight the government, the Founders and the colonies had just fought a long and bloody war to free themselves from an oppressive government, they wanted to ensure that their new government did not become oppressive, but if it did the people had the means to fight the government.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well spoken. You are correct.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The gun lobby loves this amendment just as much as you do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Guns have changed since 1792, what about mentalities ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well said. I had this image bouncing around in my head for a while until I decided to sketch it out:
Mark Passio: The True Meaning and Purpose of the 2nd Amendment: www.youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8F…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ok please explain the well regulated militia part
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
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.
It's a quick explanation, but I hope that helps.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
glad to be of help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Even in college this is being put down let me tell you. Suffice to say that led me to have a disagreement with my religious studies teacher.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love this amendment so much! As for gun bans, I am a yes and no on the subject. This amendment must be protected!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I am all for the Second Amendment wholeheartedly, don’t get me wrong, but a lot of people seem to forget the first clause guarantees that the states’ have a right to a militia independent of the federal government. Basically what I’m getting at is that the John Warner Defense Act of 2007 is a terrible thing and should be repealed immediately as unconstitutional.
Also, gun control doesn’t work; history has shown this multiple times. And when it DOES work, it’s always used to oppress the people, not stop crime.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I support the 2nd amendment because gun-control groups fail to see one clear fact; bad people will always get guns regardless of what happens. What needs to be fixed is the mental health system so there's less likely chances of mass shootings, but I could be wrong and that's what I think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ronald Reagan once said "You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"...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...."
- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So you think I should own tank? Well how about a nuclear bomb or an air craft carrier?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The second Amendment allows us to be armed. If the government can use a tank, the citizen should be able to buy a tank. But of course buying a tank cost a lot of money. So as long you can save enough money you can buy military weapons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Well, John Wayne bought a battleship.
Of course, you need to have that kind of dough.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's insane, who would want the people who owns Wall Mart or McDonalds to be able to wage full scale war. Besides what you gun nuts always forget is that you are only allowed to bare as part of a well orginized militia.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why would Walmart get tanks? They're overkill for security, are very expensive to buy and maintain plus they'd be taken out pretty quickly by the military considering DC has the luxury to take 100 percent of our pay checks if it wants too.
Regulated at the time meant equipped, and militia's are armed citizens, not the military. And I dare you to join the ATF, stack up on the doors of those who will defend their freedoms and go in first if you support gun confiscation so wholeheartedly. Sandy Hook, although a tragedy, didn't nearly kill as many people as Wounded Knee, where over 300 Indians were murdered in a gun confiscation attempt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No a regulated militia meant one that was ran by the state or the nation. The militia was part of the military. Also Walmart would only need a dozen or so tanks then when ever some one goes on strike and pickets in front of one of their stores they can just claims self defense and run their workers down. Secondly Wounded Knee was about removing native Americans off of their land not weapon removal. Thirdly no one is trying to take away all of your guns, just the ones you don't need and shouldn't have, like an artomatic rifle because when the second amandment was made they hide single shot weapons that took over a minuet to reload.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Look it up, they were attempting to disarm the Indians first so they wouldn't resist. Also, who would want an automatic? The recoil makes it VERY hard to aim, that's why the M16 went from "rock and roll" to "3-round burst." Plus it depletes ammo very quickly, so it's just good for suppressive fire. And if you want to change the Constitution, I suggest you draft an amendment. Since the Internet wasn't around during 1775, the logical conclusion would be for the government to censor DeviantArt if it pleases.
Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Pol Pot, Gaddafi and Mao introduced gun control-look how well that worked out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The real reason why our elected representatives want to disarm the public is so they can stay in power, 'cause the idea of the 2nd amendment is for the people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny. People should be able to have guns and anthropoligically speaking, armed murder is less likely to happen as a result, and I have little to no interest in guns, nor do I desire to ever own one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Our representatives already stay in power because idiots keep voting for the same guy over and over no matter how bad he is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Unrealistic views are what fuel anti 2nd amendment talks. Just having a gun doesn't make you use it. And it won't make you commit a killing spree. Criminals will get their guns illegally anyway. Not to mention that criminals would prefer to attack an unarmed populace obviously.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Try telling that to the Liberals who want to ban guns. They think that just having guns make people want to go out to killing people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
To be fair, if someone's drunk, or angry, or suicidal, they are far more likely to pull the trigger.
Of course one could argue that no device or machine is inherently good or evil, rather it is how they are used that defines the morality surrounding them, but guns are designed for the purpose of injury and death.
But having a gun in a room does create a strange psychological response to want to look at it or even test it out. Of course they won't "go out killing people", but it increases the chances. A gun is a device made specifically for the killing of other animals and humans. That fact alone tends to stimulate a subconscious aggressive state in some people. There is no denying that.
A gun ban would make it harder for criminals to get guns, make it easier for police to catch them and would lessen the amount of gun crime. But letting simply any idiot own a gun is a dangerous idea. Even a child can get a firearm in America, and to be honest, that's ridiculous.
At the same time, I can see why you may want one to defend your family. But why use a bullet based gun? Long range tasers or tranquillisers could easily achieve the same defence without killing the criminal, and then they could be made stand trial and rot in prison for their actions. Killing only encourages further killing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And the rest of us facepalm
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Statistics for 2011
323 murders committed with a rifle (Includes all types of rifles)
496 murders committed with a blunt object.
728 murders committed with bare hands or feet.
1,694 murders committed with a knife
Source: FBI
Semi auto rifles are not an issue. They are very rarely used in crimes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Australia and the UK both have extremely strict gun laws. Lets look at their crime rates.
2011 Annual violent crime rate for UK - 120.73 crimes per every 10,000 people.
2010 Annual violent crime rate for Australia - 91.44 crimes per every 10,000 people.
Now, lets compare those rates to the US who has MUCH looser gun laws.
2011 Annual violent crime rate for US - 38.60 crimes per every 10,000 people.
Imagine that, countries with stricter gun control laws have higher crime rates.
Now let's focus on the US alone.
Chicago, and Washington D.C. have some of the strictest gun control laws in the US. Lets see how their crime rates compare to the rest of the nation.
2012 Annual violent crime rate for Chicago - 103.27 crimes per every 10,000 people.
2011 Annual violent crime rate for Washington D.C. - 120.21 crimes per 10,000 people.
That's looks pretty bad compared to the much smaller nation average doesn't it? I guess those gun laws just aren't working for them. If you look at other cities and states with anti gun laws, you will see the same thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_…
You might notice that although USA is far from worst, the fact that only countries that are worse than USA are those with drug cartels in them.
Even SERBIA and MONTENEGRO have less firearm related deaths than USA, and that tells you how bad it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 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 ⏩: 0
I call bullshit.
"www.policymic.com/articles/213… "
The average annual number of handgun deaths in the 5-year period before the legislation was put in place in Australia was only a little over 500. In the United States, the total number of hand gun deaths (1980-2006) is more than 32,000 per year . Firearms are involved in 68% of homicides, 52% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults. With 60 times the number of deaths (and a similar number of families devastated) time will tell if the American people and politicians have the will to overcome the powerful lobbies of gun owners and manufacturers that have created the current gun climate and will resist change violently. There are currently estimated to be 310 million non-military firearms within the U.S, nearly one for every man, woman and child, but are controlled by a mere 35% of the population. If you add the firearms in military possession the number goes much higher. With this vast quantity of guns, even if legislation is passed tomorrow which encourages a reduction in this enormous supply of firearms and ammunition, it may take decades before the full benefits are seen. But Australia has shown that the benefits are out there if only we have the bravery, dedication and fortitude to try to achieve them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try though. Trying to limit numbers in USA by excluding some of most used firearms and then comparing it to countries that don't even have insane number of automatic weapons as USA.
Face it, buddy - most of you Americans are overgrown, spoiled brats who pull the gun out as soon as somebody doesn't hand you what you want. I wouldn't trust you with a stack of paper, even less so with deadly weapon. My country went through a period of civil war and we have more weapons than half of the Europe put together yet we don't kill each other as you idiots do.
Lemme guess - you're republican and proud NRA member, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NRA member? Yes. Republican? No. I'm an independent with strong Libertarian beliefs.
Exactly where are you getting your 35% estimate? There is no gun registry, so the exact number of gun owners is impossible to calculate. Even more so since the number of gun owners have sky rocketed in recent years (based on the rise in the number of background checks done through NICS)
According to the FBI US Government, and the Centers for Disease Control, the weapon used the most in violent crimes is not a gun. It's a baseball bat.
Firearm Homicides - 11,463
NON Firearm Homicides - 16,799
Unintentional Falls - 24,792
Drug Abuse - 25,500
Unintentional Poisoning - 31,758
Motor Vehicle Accident - 34,485
Alcohol Abuse - 107,400
Unintentional Injuries - 118,021
Medical Errors - 195,000
Tobacco - 529,000
You are MUCH more likely to be killed by your own doctor, than you are by a gun.
Now then, as for Australia. Are you aware that Australia's violent crime rate is much greater than that of the USA's? Are you aware that there was a distinctive spike in crime after the gun bans were passed? Are you aware that the police are currently having trouble with criminals getting machine guns?
Criminals don't follow laws. Only law abiding citizens do.
Did you know that people who go through the process of getting a CCL (Concealed Carry License) are usually some of the most responsible citizens? The overwhelming majority (around 99%) will never commit a violent crime.
Pulling a gun on someone for not giving me what I want? That's call armed robbery, and is one of the reasons I carry a gun. See, we Americans have the right to defend ourselves. If we are put into a situation like that where are lives are in danger, we have the right to neutralize that threat. Most of the time, the presence of the gun is enough to defuse the situation. A CCL holder will rarely have to fire a shot.
Are you aware that in America, that guns are used 80x more to protect a life than to take one?
Here's a few more facts for you.
Women use guns 200,000 times a year to prevent sexual assault.
60% of Felons say they would not mess with an armed citizen.
An analysis of FBI statistics have shown that laws allowing concealed carry have reduced the number of murders by 8.5%, the number of rapes by 5%, the number of aggravated assaults by 7% and the number of robberies by 3%.
Gun free zones create an easy target for mass shooters. The vast majority of mass shootings (almost all) have taken place in a gun free zone where it is illegal for a law abiding citizen to arm themselves for their protection. Funny how mass shooters never target gun rich environments like gun shows, NRA conventions, and gun ranges.
Police vs Citizens
There are 794,300 police officers in America, and untold millions of gun owners.
The police have an 11.3% error rate. Citizens have a 2% error rate.
The average number of deaths caused by a shooting rampage when stopped by police is 14.3. The average number of deaths caused by a shooting rampage when stopped by a citizen is 2.3.
Police kill 606 violent criminals each year. Citizens kill 1,527 violent criminals each year.
I could go on, but I think you get the point of my argument.
Overgrown spoiled brats? Idiots? Ahh, person insults. That's REALLY making your argument strong :insert sarcasm:
Why don't you try being respectful instead?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OK, let me be clear on the sublect: CCL is a great thing, I agree - everyone should have ability to carry a weapon to defend themselves. I just prefer that it is not an assault rifle. As far as I'm concerned, main problem in USA is ability to buy crapload of firearms, some of which are quite serious hardware capable of harming a great number of people in short period of time.
As far as I'm concerned, every TRAINED ADULT should be able to purchase 1 semiautomatic handgun and certain amount of ammo.
If you need more weapons than that, you need a shrink. We're not talking about action figures collection here - if you want a crapload of weapons, you're need help.
NOBODY aside from military/police needs assault weapons. Again, as far as I'm concerned, anyone caught having assault rifle should be stuck in jail for 10 years, hard work included. Easy way to get criminal bastards off the streets and get them to repay their debt back to society.
Aside from my 2 cents, here are some interesting links for you, although I doubt they will change your mind...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w…
I particularly like #8. Duh!
8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_…
For this one, you just can't ignore the fact that ONLY countries worse in firearm related deaths are those with strong drug cartels. Even countries as former Yugoslavia, who had civil war and have extremely high number of personal firearms have lower death rate than USA. If that is not troubling, I don't know what is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12…
Good news is, you are getting better in driving. Bad news is, you still don't know how to handle a gun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-an…
This one speaks for itself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here's the last fact to consider - we're only talking about DEATHS here. How many more were wounded, sometimes quite seriously but survived? I believe that would significantly increase number of people who suffered due to lax gun laws.
Live long and prosper.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what makes you think that owning more than one gun means your crazy? Millions of people on more than one gun. They use them for sport, hunting, and fun. I own plenty (including the type you want banned). I don't want to hurt anyone.
They also use them for self defense. I know plenty of people who have multiple guns for concealed carry. They'll chose larger ones in the winters when their choice of clothing makes them easier to conceal, and they'll choose smaller ones in the summer.
"Assault Weapons" are NOT an issue. The media presents them in a false light. The are rarely used in crimes, used a lot for self defense, and used mostly for sporting purposes.
Most police officers agree with me.
www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislat…
www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislat…
That figure you called BS? That came from the FBI.
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/…
(BTW, look at the numbers. California which has extremely strict gun laws and an "assault weapons" ban has more murders, and more murders caused by rifles (including ALL types of rifle) than Texas which has no "assault weapons" ban or strict antigun laws.)
California - 1,790 murders. 45 caused by rifles.
Texas - 1,089 murders. 37 caused by rifles.
More guns equal more homicide? The facts prove that to be pure BS.
Gun ownership has skyrocketed since the 1990s. Gun are being produced faster than ever before. Using your logic, this means that violent crime and murder has also skyrocketed. Let's look at the numbers.
1993 - Violent crime rate was 747.1 per 100,000 and the murder/nonnegligent manslaughter rate was 9.5 per 100,000.
2000 - Violent crime rate was 506.5 per 100,000 and the murder/nonnegligent manslaughter rate was 5.5 per 100,000.
2011 - Violent crime rate was 386.3 per 100,000 and the murder/nonnegligent manslaughter rate was 4.7 per 100,000.
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/…
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/…
Wikipedia? Not what I'd call reliable. Most of those countries you talk about have strict gun control too. As for the cartels, I wonder why they are able to kill so many people. Maybe because the citizens can't arm themselves and defend themselves?
Smartgunlaws.org? Extremely biased source (notice I'm using the FBI, other federal agencies, and police sites for my sources. They aren't biased.). I will like to point out that while guns are used in a lot of suicides, they do not cause them. Look at Japan as an example. They have extremely strict gun laws and a higher suicide rate than the USA. If people want to kill themselves, they will find a way.
Bloomberg? Take out the stats for suicide (see above) and that number changes drastically.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To begin with, the term "assault weapon" is invalid because the word "assault" cannot be an adjective. In fact, the firearms classification "assault rifle" is incorrect and should be reclassified as automatic rifles. And the "weapon" part of that dubious phrase can mean anything that is used to attack another person.
So are we calling beer bottles "assault bottles" because they can be turned into Molotov cocktails?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
this is what i think about your 2nd amendment *wiping my ass with it*
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Okay. Enjoy North Korea!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're not an American then
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're comment has been ignored. Please hang up and try again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if your ignoring it why did you comment
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>