Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Obamas New Attack On 2nd Ammendment


Lord Umbarger

Recommended Posts

We were given the right to keep and bear arms for a purpose as detailed in the second amendment. Not just so we can own guns for no apparent reason.

Sure, there are pleanty of lawful reasons to own a gun, aside from the second amendment. To perserve life and property is among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 444
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • preacherman76

    53

  • The Silver Thong

    49

  • Leonardo

    48

  • dan2234

    36

Its by our right to protect ourselfs through many common laws according to each state. According to each state we can also hunt. The right to have guns is more than just to form a militia.

Not detailed by the second amendment it isnt. Like I had said. At the time of it's writing it was a given. Everybody hunted. A rifle was a tool for survival. I'm all for people owning hunting rifles if they want to hunt, or target shoot etc... I don't however, see the need for a civilian to keep an assault rifle in their home. If they wish to form a militia, then they most certainly should be able to own these types of firearms and they should be kept in their militia's armory.

What i'm getting at here is that if people want to have the right to keep a firearm in their home as a part of self defense in the constitution, then a new amendment would be needed. The 2nd amendment clearly doesn't concern that notion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

never fired a real gun, i never intend to....

Guns are not the be all and end all of politics, neither is the american constitution.... which until the 14th amendment argued that blacks were only worth 3/5 of whites... A cunning ploy to balance the racism of the southern states (at the time) with their desire for greater representation. Just goes to show that the ideas behind the constitution were not always the bastions of morality that US citizens like to claim them as.

Sorry americans, but the constitution... its just not all that really... and holding onto guns to protect against some mythical UK/ Commie invasion is so bizarre considering the various tragedies that we've witnessed as a result of the availibility of guns.

When I was in New York for a few days some years ago, it scared the pants off me knowing that anyone around me could be 'packing cold steel as they rollin through brooklyn' (name that song)

Edited by Wyvernkeeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not detailed by the second amendment it isnt. Like I had said. At the time of it's writing it was a given. Everybody hunted. A rifle was a tool for survival. I'm all for people owning hunting rifles if they want to hunt, or target shoot etc... I don't however, see the need for a civilian to keep an assault rifle in their home. If they wish to form a militia, then they most certainly should be able to own these types of firearms and they should be kept in their militia's armory.

What i'm getting at here is that if people want to have the right to keep a firearm in their home as a part of self defense in the constitution, then a new amendment would be needed. The 2nd amendment clearly doesn't concern that notion.

There is no amendment needed, cause there is no amendment against it. In fact the 10th amendment covers it just fine, by the right of each state to implement there own laws regarding it.

I just wanted to through this out there for the fun of it. Not knockin on you bro, but would you really feel more comfortable with a group of people armed to the teeth with assault rifles, then just one guy who would use the same weapon to protect his home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

never fired a real gun, i never intend to....

Guns are not the be all and end all of politics, neither is the american constitution.... which until the 14th amendment argued that blacks were only worth 3/5 of whites... A cunning ploy to balance the racism of the southern states (at the time) with their desire for greater representation. Just goes to show that the ideas behind the constitution were not always the bastions of morality that US citizens like to claim them as.

Sorry americans, but the constitution... its just not all that really... and holding onto guns to protect against some mythical UK/ Commie invasion is so bizarre considering the various tragedies that we've witnessed as a result of the availibility of guns.

When I was in New York for a few days some years ago, it scared the pants off me knowing that anyone around me could be 'packing cold steel as they rollin through brooklyn' (name that song)

You live in the UK? If so, sorry that Americans might not hold any value to your opinnion, especialy considering the fact that you people stood by and have now become the most watched, and restricted people in the free world. If camera's on every street corner are what you consider freedom, then you can keep it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no amendment needed, cause there is no amendment against it. In fact the 10th amendment covers it just fine, by the right of each state to implement there own laws regarding it.

I just wanted to through this out there for the fun of it. Not knockin on you bro, but would you really feel more comfortable with a group of people armed to the teeth with assault rifles, then just one guy who would use the same weapon to protect his home?

We'ere arguing about the 2nd emendment correct?

Lets go back to the text. A REGULATED militia. People that train with their weapons, that's what they are, know what they are capable of and do not take those capabilities lightly. To answer your question, yes. Does this one person who owns this gun know how to fire it? How to care for it? Know what it is capable of? if not, then the person is better off with non lethal self defense. Pepper spray etc...

Edited by Dr. Peter Venkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'ere arguing about the 2nd emendment correct?

Lets go back to the text. A REGULATED militia. People that train with their weapons, that's what they are, know what they are capable of and do not take those capabilities lightly. Yes. Does this one person who owns this gun no how to fire it? How to care for it? Wnow what it is capable of? if not, then the person is better off with non lethal self defense. Pepper spray etc...

It does say regulated, but it doesnt say who is to regulate it. It certainly wasnt talking about the goverment, considering the founders knew full well there might come a day when the militia might have to turn those guns on that goverment. And have expressed that time and again. Should the goverment become "distructive of these ends"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is. How many will not be able to buy guns after the goverment deems them unfit after a pyhc test? If home land security has any say, it will be about HALF of America.

How many of those same folks will then have what guns they do have taken away?

Home land security and the Patriot act are a joke and should have never been implimented. There powers are far to reaching, that is where you should focuse your concern. Get with it and help start fixing the mistakes of the previous administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You live in the UK? If so, sorry that Americans might not hold any value to your opinnion, especialy considering the fact that you people stood by and have now become the most watched, and restricted people in the free world. If camera's on every street corner are what you consider freedom, then you can keep it.

I never said that we were free, but we also have an egalitarian health system and a far better benefits system than the US. The cameras are a phase, brought on by your countries obsession with 9/11 and our govts willingness to snap to your heels, but we have options for higher education which are not ludicrously expensive, free travel within the EU. Greater opportunity equals greater freedom. There are lots of things apart from gun ownership we could measure freedom by.

And at least we did not have the blind tenacity and arrogance to call our anti-terror legislation, 'the patriot act.' I mean, come on, how decieving is that.....

Camera's on every street corner, no, your right, thats not freedom... But its a better freedom than worrying that every person on the street might be carrying a loaded weapon. Furthermore, if the people are armed then that means all the police must be armed, and I dont see how that is condicive to freedom. I mean, how are you free to say what you truly mean to someone who could pull a gun on you?

America has only been free to tear around the world because of its volume of and obsession with guns, its a fact, but that doesn't make it right.

and lets not even discuss 'protest zones.'

Edited by Wyvernkeeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does say regulated, but it doesnt say who is to regulate it. It certainly wasnt talking about the goverment, considering the founders knew full well there might come a day when the militia might have to turn those guns on that goverment. And have expressed that time and again. Should the goverment become "distructive of these ends"

Then why include it in the text? Who were they refering to? Santa Claus? No, I'm of the mind they were refering to local and maybe even state government regulation, for the very reason you mentioned. Although, I've also heard that regulated refers to being well trained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You live in the UK? If so, sorry that Americans might not hold any value to your opinnion, especialy considering the fact that you people stood by and have now become the most watched, and restricted people in the free world. If camera's on every street corner are what you consider freedom, then you can keep it.

Ok then hear it from a brit living in one of the most un- gun regulated states Nevada, I would put more trust in those camera's then a gun in the hand of every nut job redneck here.

Edited by tycom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then hear it from a brit living in one of the most un- gun regulated states Nevada, I would put more trust in those camera's then a gun in the hand of every nut job redneck here.

Being in Vegas, you got the best of both of those. LMAO!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why include it in the text? Who were they refering to? Santa Claus? No, I'm of the mind they were refering to local and maybe even state government regulation, for the very reason you mentioned. Although, I've also heard that regulated refers to being well trained.

That would make the most sence to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then hear it from a brit living in one of the most un- gun regulated states Nevada, I would put more trust in those camera's then a gun in the hand of every nut job redneck here.

I have lived 45 mins outta NYC my entire life. I have never spent one second in fear of being shot by anyone. Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that we were free, but we also have an egalitarian health system and a far better benefits system than the US. The cameras are a phase, brought on by your countries obsession with 9/11 and our govts willingness to snap to your heels, but we have options for higher education which are not ludicrously expensive, free travel within the EU. Greater opportunity equals greater freedom. There are lots of things apart from gun ownership we could measure freedom by.

And at least we did not have the blind tenacity and arrogance to call our anti-terror legislation, 'the patriot act.' I mean, come on, how decieving is that.....

Camera's on every street corner, no, your right, thats not freedom... But its a better freedom than worrying that every person on the street might be carrying a loaded weapon. Furthermore, if the people are armed then that means all the police must be armed, and I dont see how that is condicive to freedom. I mean, how are you free to say what you truly mean to someone who could pull a gun on you?

America has only been free to tear around the world because of its volume of and obsession with guns, its a fact, but that doesn't make it right.

and lets not even discuss 'protest zones.'

I guess thats our difference, we value freedom. And dont get me wrong, many of the things you meantion here are a direct violation of our freedoms, especialy the partriot act. I rage against those as well.

For your last sentance, you are 100% right. We spend more money on military than most nations combined. But no one is talking about taking the goverments guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lived 45 mins outta NYC my entire life. I have never spent one second in fear of being shot by anyone. Ever.

Doesn't this kinda contradict everything you've been arguing?

If there is no fear of being shot, why does anyone need a gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this kinda contradict everything you've been arguing?

If there is no fear of being shot, why does anyone need a gun?

No fear, doesnt mean no possibilty.

That was for the folks who think being in America means you have to constantly be on the outlook for someone trying to shoot you. That isnt the case. And has nothing to do with ones right to buy guns.

I dont FEAR being robbed/assaulted in my own home, cause I know I have the means to protect myself. I dont FEAR being shot in the street, cause this place isnt the wild west people like to make it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would make the most sence to me.

I would also, due to this, be more inclined to trust them with any weapon. I still don't think those types of weapons should be kept in homes. They should be kept in that militia's armory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may initially sound kind of silly but roll with me.

At the end of the film Friday, with Ice Cube, the protagonist has aquired a gun with which he intends to stop a possible incoming drive by. But his dad makes a good speech, he says that in his youth people fought with fists and that way, you settled your differences, sometimes you won and sometimes you lost but essentially you usually walked away from the situation. Now with everyone carrying guns, escalation is so much quicker that someone is usually dead before anyone knows why. Preacher, You demonstrated it by saying ''I dont FEAR being robbed/assaulted in my own home, cause I know I have the means to protect myself.'' ie you would shoot first, question later... but its this mentality that is the problem.

Guns are fine if you are only using them to protect your freedom, but this is never the case. What people are doing now is using guns to rob, murder and rape, thus putting their own freedom before anyone else, especially the victim.

Guns in the US would make sense if the US was actually in the situation described by the constitutional rules, but as it is , its a bit more messy. People don't use guns to protect their opinions, they back up their opinions with guns? see the difference?

I had a gun pulled on me once (in the UK) ... It was not cool! Never got shot but learnt there is no fun in being pistol whipped.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are fine if you are only using them to protect your freedom, but this is never the case.

You can't say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't say that.

I can, its freedom remember... but maybe you're right, maybe i should have said, its mostly never the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No fear, doesnt mean no possibilty.

That was for the folks who think being in America means you have to constantly be on the outlook for someone trying to shoot you. That isnt the case. And has nothing to do with ones right to buy guns.

I dont FEAR being robbed/assaulted in my own home, cause I know I have the means to protect myself. I dont FEAR being shot in the street, cause this place isnt the wild west people like to make it out to be.

You know it's funny gun owners i know here won't give all that protection bs, their just honest and admit they love their guns.

I'm not against banning guns here but we could use more effective regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may initially sound kind of silly but roll with me.

At the end of the film Friday, with Ice Cube, the protagonist has aquired a gun with which he intends to stop a possible incoming drive by. But his dad makes a good speech, he says that in his youth people fought with fists and that way, you settled your differences, sometimes you won and sometimes you lost but essentially you usually walked away from the situation. Now with everyone carrying guns, escalation is so much quicker that someone is usually dead before anyone knows why. Preacher, You demonstrated it by saying ''I dont FEAR being robbed/assaulted in my own home, cause I know I have the means to protect myself.'' ie you would shoot first, question later... but its this mentality that is the problem.

Guns are fine if you are only using them to protect your freedom, but this is never the case. What people are doing now is using guns to rob, murder and rape, thus putting their own freedom before anyone else, especially the victim.

Guns in the US would make sense if the US was actually in the situation described by the constitutional rules, but as it is , its a bit more messy. People don't use guns to protect their opinions, they back up their opinions with guns? see the difference?

I had a gun pulled on me once (in the UK) ... It was not cool! Never got shot but learnt there is no fun in being pistol whipped.

I agree completly. So focus the laws on criminals. Make it so if you use a gun unlawfully you will never see the light of day again. Why regulate me? That is the problem, these laws dont effect criminals, they only effect law abiding folks. Criminals are not going to register thier guns. And guns can be bought in more than just one way. And thats another problem with this law, we are asking for a underground weapon movement like never before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can, its freedom remember... but maybe you're right, maybe i should have said, its mostly never the case.

I would say that perception is because we don't hear much about it when guns work for the good guys. Every time a homeowner here offs a dirtbag invading his home and gets on the news, it's always just a side note, whereas the gun crimes get top billing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it's funny gun owners i know here won't give all that protection bs, their just honest and admit they love their guns.

I'm not against banning guns here but we could use more effective regulations.

I personaly dont have a love for guns. I have one 22 semi auto rifle with a 10 clip. It might not even take someone down if say they were high on drugs. But I feel better knowing I have a option come time someone planned to hurt my family. Id probably use it more for show than anything. I dont see any wrong in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.