324 replies to this topic

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Doesn't change my position or the position of many others that this whole debate is not about taking away people's right to own weapons, that military-grade weaponry should not be as easily available - if at all - to the general populace as it currently is, and that the 2nd as written over 200 years ago is out of date and needs to be addressed to be brought up to date with the current state and definitions of modern arms and armaments.

If thats how you want things to work in Canada fine but dont push that agenda in America.

[Czero 101]

AsteroidX, on 11 January 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

If thats how you want things to work in Canada fine but dont push that agenda in America.

Since when is having and voicing an opinion "pushing an agenda"...?

And I didn't know I had to be American to be disgusted by concerned over the number of dead Americans due to mostly preventable gun violence.





Cz

[AsteroidX]

Im only suggesting you worry about Canada atm. America has enough crap going on internally. We need to work it out. Your opinion is valued.

[The Unseen]

I say" OVER THEIR DEAD BODIES"

[Realm]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms

And here is an oath of enlisted and officers sworn to protect and defend the constitution of which the second amendment is part of. This is also along the lines
of politcal parties oaths including the Presidents.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

So when they try and take away the second amendment, this is why we have arms. Our own government has become the enemy.

Edited by Realm, 11 January 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[Corp]

So have people actually looked through the thread and looked at the source material to see that no one is seriously moving to take away the Second Amendment? It's rather odd to see people fighting against something that's not happening.

[AsteroidX]

What the hell are you talking about Corp ? Detentions have begun in a small scale of American citizens.

[Corp]

I'm sure they have.   Do you have any non-bias sources that state that Americans are being rounded up for no reason at all?

The Second Amendment is not going anywhere. Even if gun control laws are put into place you will still have plenty of guns. Claimly otherwise is just not factual and does nothing but spread fear and paranoia.

[AsteroidX]

Gun Control Laws is attacking the 2nd Amendment ...Talking about it angers gun advocates.

[Corp]

The 2nd Amendment says you can have guns. No where does it say what type of guns. So unless a law comes up to ban 100% of all firearms then gun control laws do not attack the 2nd Amendment. And if having an adult conversation makes them angry then gun advocates need to grow a thicker skin.

[flyingswan]

Babe Ruth, on 06 January 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

How many gun casualties does Australia have anymore?

On a per person per year basis, about one tenth of the USA number.

[Babe Ruth]

Corp, on 12 January 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

The 2nd Amendment says you can have guns. No where does it say what type of guns. So unless a law comes up to ban 100% of all firearms then gun control laws do not attack the 2nd Amendment. And if having an adult conversation makes them angry then gun advocates need to grow a thicker skin.

Not many object to the adult conversation.

But keep in mind that an adult conversation, which would include a rational analysis of the empirical data, reveals that in terms of stopping people from shooting each other, what is generally considered "gun control laws" are grossly ineffective.

Yes, they might make everybody feel better, and make it look like government is "doing something", but their efficacy is notoriously nonexistent.

[ninjadude]

the 2nd amendment "arms" in the 18th century were flint locks. I'm not opposed to as many people having as many flint locks as they want. And that's all.

[CRYSiiSx2]

ninjadude, on 12 January 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

the 2nd amendment "arms" in the 18th century were flint locks. I'm not opposed to as many people having as many flint locks as they want. And that's all.

It's garbage thinking of people like yours that need to go somewhere, make yourself a town, and let everyone who wants it that way live there.  Leave us law abiding gun owners alone.  We're sick of idiots trying to take away our rights.

[Czero 101]

CRYSiiSx2, on 13 January 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

It's garbage thinking of people like yours that need to go somewhere, make yourself a town, and let everyone who wants it that way live there.  Leave us law abiding gun owners alone.  We're sick of idiots trying to take away our rights.

What part of "This isn't about taking away your right to own a gun, this is about limiting the availability of military-grade weaponry from people who do not need to own them" are you being too obstinate to understand...?





Cz