No, the Second Amendment is not about "items/property". It's about the principle of self-defense etc.
The word 'guns' doesn't even appear in the text.
Fern
-snip-
The 1st amendment is talking about an inherent quality (speech/communication) vs items/property(arms/guns).
Owning guns should not be a right. Guns are not even close to what they were when the 2nd amendment was envisioned!
IF the second amendment is correct, then you should be able to bear the arms that were available when it was conceived. I would be totally cool if you gun nuts had smoothbore muskets! Or do you need to kill things (people) faster than that?
I'll tell you, it would immediately make somebody think twice about shooting up a school if the gun they carried weighed 30lbs, was 6ft long, took 2 min to reload, and couldn't hit anything more than 50 yards away.
Words are far more dangerous than guns.
How many people did Hitler personally kill? I mean actually pull the trigger and fire a bullet into another person?
How many people died as a result of his words?
No, the Second Amendment is not about "items/property". It's about the principle of self-defense etc.
The word 'guns' doesn't even appear in the text.
Fern
Actually the second amendment is SPECIFICALLY dealing with "arms" aka FIREARMS aka guns aka PROPERTY. The word "defense" does not even appear in the document, idiot.
KTHXBYE
TreVader said:*snip*
If you don't want a gun, don't buy one.
I know you and your ilk like trying to stomp on the Constitution, but knock it off already.
Do you have any ideas why crime has been going down? Are we just not as violent as we used to be?
Or do you just not think of things like that? You know, the ignorance is bliss, type?
Not really, they just would like to see America stop leading the 1st world in gun murders. Its a difference of philosophy. You believe more guns will reduce violence, his "ilk" believes less guns/more regulations will reduce violence.
You made that claim the last time I brought up this issue and when I asked you for examples you never responded again.
Do you have examples (besides this one) of liberals doing the same thing with guns?
Maybe you gun nutters could come up with real solutions and pugs for those solutions instead of always complaining when the anti gun folks come up with their own solutions.
Not really, they just would like to see America stop leading the 1st world in gun murders. Its a difference of philosophy. You believe more guns will reduce violence, his "ilk" believes less guns/more regulations will reduce violence.
Owning guns should not be a right. Guns are not even close to what they were when the 2nd amendment was envisioned!
IF the second amendment is correct, then you should be able to bear the arms that were available when it was conceived. I would be totally cool if you gun nuts had smoothbore muskets! Or do you need to kill things (people) faster than that?
I'll tell you, it would immediately make somebody think twice about shooting up a school if the gun they carried weighed 30lbs, was 6ft long, took 2 min to reload, and couldn't hit anything more than 50 yards away.
Congratulations, you just made the same brain dead argument Piers Morgan did. By your logic, the internet shouldn't be protected by the first amendment, your DNA shouldn't be protected by the fourth and there should be no constitutional protection for abortion, since none of those things were envisioned by the framers.
Maybe we'll get lucky and Jeremy Clarkson will punch you in the face too.
Why is the onus on us to come up with a solution? The onus isnt on you and your ilk to close the border or end voter fraud.
Why is it so hard for you to understand the point I was making? If you can't come up with your own solutions to problems then how can you complain about other people who bring forward solutions?
Btw, who is me and my ilk with regards to the border?
So you think it's better to keep throwing ideas at a wall until something sticks (even if harm is done) as opposed to doing nothing? Amirite?Why is it so hard for you to understand the point I was making? If you can't come up with your own solutions to problems then how can you complain about other people who bring forward solutions?
Btw, who is me and my ilk with regards to the border?
Why is it so hard for you to understand the point I was making? If you can't come up with your own solutions to problems then how can you complain about other people who bring forward solutions?
Umm, because your 'solutions' are asinine and do nothing to actually solve the problem?
Its designed to reduce handguns in California. The goal is to make it unreasonably difficult to sell hand guns in California. People should stop pretending that this is about crime prevention. This is an unapologetic attempt to reduce handguns in the state.
So you think it's better to keep throwing ideas at a wall until something sticks (even if harm is done) as opposed to doing nothing? Amirite?
Your point was infantile and ignorant.
Again, if I'm obligated to offer a better solution to identifying guns based on discarded cartridges (which I was not aware was a problem), then you are equally obligated to offer better solutions on voter fraud.
Its a two-way street. You have no interest in fixing my pet peeves, why should I have any interest in fixing yours?
I think it's better to come up with solutions that address the issues. Complaining about the solutions while providing none yourself doesn't solve problems.
I don't think they think there is a problem. Other than there are still not enough of them.