16
0

2nd Amendment Discussion


 invite response                
2018 Feb 17, 11:51am   283,086 views  1,403 comments

by CajunSteve   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

With all the talk about the school shootings, let's take a look at what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Couple things to note in there:

1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.

So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?

In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.

So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??

Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.



« First        Comments 1,368 - 1,403 of 1,403        Search these comments

1369   Patrick   2024 Aug 25, 4:50pm  

The 2nd Amendment is about defending ourselves from bad government, but bears also sometimes want to kill you, so 2A is useful in that case as well:

https://notthebee.com/article/man-hiking-in-alaska-forced-to-shoot-a-brown-bear-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-the-leg-while-deleting-the-bear


@CollinRugg
NEW: Man gives films an incredibly calm video after he shot himself in the leg after getting attacked by a bear in Alaska.

Tyler Johnson is lucky to be alive after he was charged by a bear in south-central Alaska.

Johnson was bit in the leg, but thanks to his quick thinking, he pulled out his pistol and emptied his clip into the bear.

One of the shots hit him in the leg with the bullet exiting out the back.

Johnson's father, who is an Alaskan State Trooper, was with him and also shot at the bear.

Johnson was transported by helicopter to Anchorage, Alaska where he recovered without undergoing any surgical procedures.


1370   RWSGFY   2024 Aug 28, 8:21am  

Yeah, going into the thick tall grass was a mistake.
1377   RWSGFY   2024 Sep 19, 3:52pm  

Patrick says






... and SKS is not considered an AW neither under expired Ferderal AW ban nor under current CA one.
1381   DemocratsAreTotallyFucked   2024 Sep 22, 5:54am  

Gun control working....

1383   Patrick   2024 Sep 27, 12:51pm  

DemocratsAreTotallyFucked says

Gun control working....




@DemocratsAreTotallyFucked Damn, where is that? Looks like Mexico or Central America.

Bouncer should not have turned his back, and the restaurant should definitely have armed people to deal with thugs.
1386   SoTex   2024 Oct 9, 7:31pm  

Patrick says

Looks like Mexico or Central America.


They sound like they are from San Antonio.
1391   Patrick   2024 Oct 15, 7:25pm  

https://nitter.poast.org/SteveLovesAmmo/status/1845204211362828790


This chick in a dress has better shotgun skills than Tim Walz.



1400   Patrick   2024 Nov 4, 8:04pm  

https://jpfo.org/articles-2024/us-firearms-per-capita-and.htm


U.S. Firearms per Capita and Homicide Rates. No Correlation



A linchpin of the argument of those who favor a disarmed population is the assumption of "More Guns = More Crime". It was succinctly stated as an assumption in a recent paper. (one source is referenced) Psychopathy, Gun Carrying, and Firearm Violence:

Carrying guns increases the risk of injury and death...

This is a hotly disputed assumption. There are several papers which dispute the premise. If carrying guns does not increase the risk of injury and death, the pragmatic argument for strict restrictions on gun ownership and use collapses. There is some evidence, if guns are restricted in a draconian manner, homicides with guns may be reduced. Overall homicides are not reduced.

If the substitution of other methods results in the same or more homicides, or if firearms are used to prevent homicides as well as facilitate them, the argument to restrict gun ownership is not viable.
1401   RWSGFY   2024 Nov 5, 7:27am  

The_Deplorable says






As if somebody would get into shootout with popos over an illegal squirrel, lol.

Memes are very effective ... at dumbing down the issue.

« First        Comments 1,368 - 1,403 of 1,403        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste