HOME | DD
Balddog4 — 2nd Amendment
Published: 2012-12-24 17:31:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 6855; 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
This... [link] explains how the 2nd Amendment works. ( F-bomb warning)
This... [link] explains how anti-gun people think gun control works.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, but who in his/hers sane mind needs an assault rifle? Where's the limit? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for regular folks to have access to handguns, but we need to remove assault rifles and similar kind of weapons from general population.
I'ev seen first hand what a bunch of weapons does to a country full of stressed out people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
"Assault weapons" are not a problem. Less than 400 people each year are killed with rifles of ALL kinds.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Less than 400 people each year are killed with rifles of ALL kinds."
Yeah, that's bullshit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A semi-auto pistol can't mow down an oncoming mob. The limit is where your money ends. Why is it legal for companies to have automatic weapons but not individuals? The laws for gun control says one thing: the people can not govern themselves and must be governed by a strong, central government.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You should change your name to Sheep15 instead. Your strong, central government will do that for you anyway one day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Explain how I am a sheep. Is it because I think that if a big company can have automatics it should be legal for individuals? Or because I believe that putting a limit on what you can use to defend yourself is wrong? Or is it because I disagree with your viewpoint? I do not like the idea of a strong, central government. Is that what makes me a sheep?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, you prefer small groups of well armed, independent people? Jeez, what could go wrong? I mean, it's not like human beings are greedy, egoistical, fear-mongering, arrogant, selfish and occasionally, stupid.
and I'll agree with you on one thing - big companies SHOULDN'T have automatics. Those should be reserved solely for army/police. As far as I'm concerned, law should state that anyone caught possession one should be immediately sentenced to several years in prison with hard work included. Just level the playground, you know?
Average human doesn't need anything more than semi-automatic gun or hunting rifle. It's not like most of us still goes to forest to hunt for a meal, McCrap and Bloat King already took care of that.
What makes you a sheep is that you believe that humans are responsible. You believe that all humans have the restraint not to abuse that kind of power that comes with possessing a weapon of mass murder. Yeah, we saw how that works in USA - every weak ther's a mass shooting somewhere. Good job. Give 'em more ammo and better guns and problem should solve itself! Real fuckin' genius.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I support the division of the population of America into small, manageable units that govern themselves. Each one would contribute to our national defense should the need arise (invasion, the government trying to seize power (We've never seen that happen. Especially in Germany.) riots, etc) just as it was done in when my country was founded. The military is divided in that form. Anyone who owns a weapon for any purpose than personal defense would be ingrained into the military system, so if he has the money to do so, he can buy a tank and it could be used to help quell a riot in, say, Montana. The neighborhoods would have their own militia, funded by the neighborhood as they see fit, for the purpose of defending the neighborhood. Weapons would be bought by families to defend the families. Each city would have its own military leaders and funding. They would be part of counties with the same thing. This would continue up to the national level where the leader of these militias would be the commander in chief. The president SHOULD BE our commander in chief.
You honestly think the police should be trusted above citizens? Either you don't live in a police state or you support their brutality.
Average humans don't need a baseball bat, the most used weapon in assault or a car, which leads to far more deaths than guns.
So I am a sheep because I don't agree with your viewpoint. I am a sheep for believing that the majority of people are responsible for their own actions and that those who use their free agency wrong should be forced to pay the consequences by losing what they have taken or paying back the one that they harmed. (murder? lose life. Steal? pay back double what you would have taken. Rape? Well, that just isn't something that should be discussed in an open chat like this.)
And where do mass shootings happen? Gun free zones. Oh, so gun free zones lead to mass shootings? Let's make it harder for the law abiding citizens to get them. Yeah, "Real fuckin' genius." By the way, using said language makes you look less intelligent. By insulting me, you lost respect. By cussing at me, you have lost any credibility I previously had credited you.
Mass shootings are on the decline, not rise. Police often turn a single murder into a mass shooting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You support separation of your country in smaller enclaves? How stupid are you anyway? You people had a civil war so you can unite and even now you butthurt southern idiots that lost the war still talk about separation and division?
You and your ilk still live in 1700's. Try to grow a pair and become a human being of 21st century, please. This isn't "every cave for themselves" anymore, Mr. Caveman. If you had ounce of gray matter in your head, you'd fight for unity in your country where everyone helps each other to live a better life. Instead, you'd rather introduce more borders between humans?
I admit, you're not a sheep. They're far smarter than you and your kind, bub. Get back in your compound and clutch your rifle tight, bub. Big, bad, government is out there and they're coming for you!
And by the way, what you propose isn't a police run state, it is MILITARY DICTATORSHIP, similar to ones that were in Lybia and Iraq, for example. You know, those guys you Yanks wanted so desperately to take off the throne - Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghaddafi?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are stupid. You are honestly the dumbest person I have ever met. The country WOULD BE UNITED, YOU IDIOT! DOMESTIC DEFENSE IS HANDLED LOCALLY! ARE YOU TRULY DUMB ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT I WANT TO DIVIDE THE COUNTRY INTO SMALLER PIECES!?!?!?! THE MILITARY IS ALREADY DIVIDED INTO SMALL, MANAGABLE UNITS! I AM SAYING ALLOW PEOPLE TO FUND THE DEFENSE OF THEIR CITY WITH THE MONEY THEY WANT TO USE, AS IS DECIDED IN A REPUBLIC SYSTEM!
"You and your ilk still live in the 1700s" because human nature NEVER CHANGES! OF COURSE IT ISN'T EVERY CAVE MAN FOR HIMSELF! I AM TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM IN ........ Oh, wait. A troll. No, a rock. A rock so dumb that the rocks are sad at the very idea of being part of the same reality as you. I am disgusted by your ignorance and you insistence in ignoring reality. Anyone with anything close to a semblance of the intelligence found in steel would realize that each state controlling it's own domestic defense instead of relying on foreign aid is better than what YOU plan, which is to pull your pants down below your knees and take it up the tailpipe.
I'm done talking to you. You are too stupid to be reasoned with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here's a history lesson - Yugoslavia. Research and see what happened there, dumbass. Maybe you learn something new about human nature, although I doubt it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for commenting back as the slavish dog you are, because now you can be properly banned.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The second Amendment allows us to have the same weapons as the government. That means if the Government are allowed to own assault rifles, then I am allowed to own an assault rifle. It's not against the Consitution. Which is why I'm going to buy a tank.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Aaaaaaaand, that's why you're an idiot. Why not F-16 then? You think that tank will help you against plains? Moron.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If I have enough money I will also buy a Black-Hawk and I may even consider paying people to build me my own B-17 Bomber World War 2 Flying Fortress. And also a German Tiger Tank.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You scared that much? That's pathetic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
ou know what's really pathetic? Thinking that the government wouldn't turn tyrannical if it had the opportunity. I'm sure the Germans thought the same way as you. You know you have lost the debate when you have to turn to ad hominem attacks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So answer is to give more weapons to everyone and that will sort it out. I mean, if everyone had an assault rifle, that would stop government with it's aircraft carriers, biological and chemical weapons, nuclear arsenal etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because that's what I said, right? At the end of the day, aircraft carriers and nukes aren't standard issue now are they? Assault rifles are standard issue and that's the real threat. By your moronic logic, we should just take away all of the hammers, bats, butter knives, and cars as well because there are far more deaths caused by those than by "assault rifles."
Let me remind you that the second amendment is put in place for the purpose of creating a militia against the government. Furthermore, the idea that people like you have that we shouldn't even try to defend ourselves and just give up any remaining ability to do so just because we are outmatched is absolutely ridiculous. We lost the Korean War even though we are far more equipped and better trained than the Koreans... You could go through one war after another where the superior military lost to the inferior. Hell, how do you think we started this country? England was the superpower of the time against our militia of farmers and children.
If you respond, try your best to think for yourself and use some original points, not the piss poor points we have all heard over and over again. Educate yourself on the second amendment while you're at it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Why do you people keep saying the second amendment was created to fight the government should it become tyrannical? This is stupid. It was created so that people like you and I could defend against ANY threat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...including (and with this in mind) a tyrannical government.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the constant belief that the main purpose of it is to fight a tyrannical government is wrong. The founders were concerned with invaders, and created a government specifically to limit federal power and to make sure that power did NOT stay in the hands of the tyrants for too long, even devising a loophole that gets them kicked out early via impeachment. The media was supposed to inform us of ANY wrong performed by our leaders and their power was supposed to be extremely limited. But the rights of the states were lost because of the civil war and the 17th amendment, removing the state's right to elect their representatives. We the people were to remove tyrannical governments at the polls. The second amendment is for the invaders and those that threaten your life, liberty and property in the immediate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So are you basically denying that the second amendment isn't for threats of a domestic tyrannical government only foreign? ...because voting will remove tyrannical leaders...?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And this is why we are considered idiots. We spout out about the government taking our guns and encourage riots by insisting that guns exist ONLY to overthrow the government and completely deny that their is any other reason why one would need guns. It makes us look like the gun-toting maniacs that the gun grabbers make us out to be. And originally, yes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How do you not see the error in your logic? Furthermore, what makes you think that I said the 2nd is ONLY there to overthrow government? For someone who claims to have such a wide view on this issue, you are rather narrow minded.
How about some more questions for you. What makes you think that a tyrannical leader would willingly step down or allow himself/herself to be voted out of office?By definition, a tyrannical leader becomes so when democracy fails. In which case, force MAY be required to remove them...
At any rate, did I not specifically say that the second is for domestic AND foreign threats? Let me make it easy for you. Yes, yes I did.
This is why nobody takes people like you seriously. Not only are you making up history to fit your narrative, you fail to pay attention to any point of view that doesn't fit yours and use faulty logic, myopic logic, to back up your drivel. Funny thing is, knowing this about you, I INTENTIONALLY kept my answers short and pointed directly at the faulty logic and it was like I never said anything at all. You couldn't even respond to my single points.. For that reason, I'm not going to continue arguing with you. There is no point talking to someone who already has their mind made up and isn't open to actually talk about issues. All you want to do is fight and I'm not interested in fighting with people who refuse to think.
Have a good day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please explain how my logic is in error. I prefer to see my mistake, because you aren't an idiot. You have shown that you understand the need for the constitution. However, you say things like this: "Let me remind you that the second amendment is put in place for the purpose of creating a militia against the government." This leads to wordsmiths making us out as gun nuts that want to encourage riots and overthrow any government we don't like. Explain how I have been narrow-minded. Explain where I SAID that I have a wide view.
When we follow due process, it is legal to throw a tyrannical leader out of office. We will use our military, which is SWORN to uphold the Constitution of the United States to remove him if necessary. When we don't Marshall Law is officially put in place, guns taken and freedom drastically limited beyond what is already limited.
"So are you basically denying that the second amendment isn't for threats of a domestic tyrannical government only foreign? ...because voting will remove tyrannical leaders...?" Is this you SPECIFICALLY saying that it was for "domestic AND foreign threats"? Because my point is that wordsmiths will take what you said BEFORE this and shape it into anarchist drivel. So no. No you didn't.
Where am I making up history to fit my narrative, failing to pay attention to ANY of your points, or , let me repeat myself, using logic with any error?
Ah. A shot at my intelligence. You have NOT pointed out ANY faulty logic and I have only responded to what you have said. I HAVE been responding to your points. Explain how I am fighting. I am only pointing out that the constant, let me re-quote " the second amendment is put in place for the purpose of creating a militia against the government" makes us, let me repeat, look like "gun nuts that want to encourage riots and overthrow any government we don't like."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've already pointed out why your logic has failed you. Maybe I haven't been clear so let me say it one last time. Here is one specific case were your argument falls apart: "We the people were to remove tyrannical governments at the polls. The second amendment is for the invaders and those that threaten your life, liberty and property in the immediate." When it gets so bad that guns need to be taken up to remove a tyrannical government, democracy has failed and no amount of going to the polls will correct our situation. So let me ask you again, are you trying to say that the 2nd Amendment is only meant for foreign threats? Or are you simply trying to avoid admitting that it is meant for domestic threats as well as foreign? Either way, you're wrong, or you are being intellectually dishonest.
"Is this you SPECIFICALLY saying that it was for 'domestic AND foreign threats'?" I was more specifically talking about my first response to you: "...including (and with this in mind) a tyrannical government." The implication that obviously the 2nd Amendment wasn't indented for only domestic use should be very obvious. "Including" was the key word there. I wasn't being vague. Tell me where I said that the ONLY purpose for the 2nd Amendment is for domestic use as it seems you are trying to say... Now that I re-read your comment, that is exactly what you are trying to say. "...insisting that guns exist ONLY to overthrow the government and completely deny that their is any other reason why one would need guns." Not only did I never insist such a thing, nor have I EVER heard other gun advocates say something that ridiculous, but not once have I EVER denied that there are multiple reasons to have guns outside of domestic threats. And you ask me where you are making up history to fit your narrative or where you're failing to pay attention to my points? Really?
"Ah. A shot at my intelligence." Pardon? By saying that you refuse to think? That's hardly a shot at your intelligence. If anything, it's a shot at you not using your intelligence. After pretty much ignoring what I've said to you so that you can continue to argue with me and not really giving much thought to how ludicrous the notion that democracy will pull us out of a state of true tyranny (one where guns would actually be needed), it's safe to say that you really aren't doing much thinking, just a lot of arguing. "We will use our military, which is SWORN to uphold the Constitution of the United States to remove him if necessary." Can you honestly say that you've thought that statement through? I wish oaths meant that much to people. I really do. You know who else has sworn to uphold the constitution? The hypothetical tyrannical leaders that we would hypothetically be removing with our military. We should demand that the government remove Obama this second with all of his violations of the constitution. Not saying that other presidents haven't violated the constitution, but that's just the point. They all SWORE to uphold the constitution... That doesn't stop them from doing whatever they want, nor does that move our military to remove them, nor will it ever. Who really tells the military what to do? Have we learned nothing from the Third Reich? (side note: "forgetting" history to make a point is the same as making up history in my book, just like leaving out key facts of a story is still lying.)
Why you care so much about these "wordsmiths" out there is beyond me. They will twist and warp and even lie about whatever you or I have to say no matter how specific we are. I don't have the time of day to enumerate every exception to every rule or pre-refute any imagined rebuttal to everything I have to say. This isn't a masters discourse, this is a comment on an art forum. And speaking of caring about what other people think, why do you care if people THINK we are gun toting anarchists if it's not true? Are we still in high school here? Seriously. This is the problem with most people. We are far too concerned with how and what people think about us like a bunch of pubescent little girls. If that's what you're concerned with, with all due respect, grow up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You do know the Chinese helped NK right? They basically won back their whole country for them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The point still remains.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Does it though? I mean use Vietnam as an example and sure it works, but Korea is a little more complicated than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was actually talking about Vietnam. That was my mistake. I didn't even catch that and wrote Korea. But yes, the point still remains because the point is that it's ridiculous to think that you can't win against a force that's clearly stronger.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wasn't arguing the point, just that it doesn't stand for Korea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The thing is, even if the example was bad (and I take responsibility for mentioning the wrong country) the point remains intact because the point doesn't depend on the example for it to be true.
Thank you for the correction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't disagree with the point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm not scared. I love learning World War 2 and would love to have some things from World War 2. Also To protect my family with. Which is why I'm going to have an arsenal in my house, which I'm entitled to have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know, you aren't getting your point across because you are being so full of yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, it's because you're stupid, kiddo. Once you grow a pair (hopefully before you go to retirement home), consider growing a brain too, please. In fact, try with brain first, you'll be doing us all a favor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you planning to join the military? Or run for president?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Been there, done that. Military, not the president.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That should be proof that I am not a coward. Because I'm going to join the military and when I'm 35 run for president.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, it is actually opposite. Only cowards pile up weapons and ammo, always living in fear that somebody or something is coming after them.
Face it: you're nobody, insignificant and nobody gives two shits about you. Big bad government doesn't give rats ass about you. And as long as you drive on government made roads, suck on government tit when it comes to medical and social security, you're just two-faced, pathetic, cowardly little jackass.
You wanna be tough? Leave all of that and move to Tibet. Or Sahara desert. Somewhere where you will be totally free. Lets see how tough you are then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It doesn't matter what you say. I am no coward, so there. The only reason why you are calling me a coward is because you are afraid of me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Don't argue with him [:devblackstrike]. He's so full of himself he can't see past his own cock.
Also, he mentioned Australia as "supporting evidence."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you supporting me? Or are supporting blackstrike?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You. That's why I put brackets (these: "[" and "]") around his [~blackstrike ] name after the pronoun, so you'd know who I was talking about when I said "don't argue with him" :U.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah okay. I never seen anyone do that with names before. Interesting, anyway thanks for the support
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, I'm sure you will hop on your little gay tank and come over to my place to shoot it down.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>