Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not abolish any RIGHT

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
The Second Ammendment is the right that keeps all the other rights from being taken away at the government's whim. Take a look at what's happening in europe. People are being fined or arrested because they said mean things about Muslims. Free speech has been effectively abolished.

Here we go again.... Please educate yourself (if that''s possible coming from the US where the Epcot centre is representative of world culture! - Busch Gardens is better but still doesn't reach 0.01%! - been to both..... and for real : France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Africa, Italy, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Holland, Belgium, Canada, USA (west,east, mid, south, north), Fuerteventura, Aruba.

What you have said is utter BS and a good indication of utter ignorance. Pat yourself on the back. Bet you are a Trump voter.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Xtrozero

It says "arms". Be that knives, clubs, our fists, and, of course, guns. Implicit is the protection of the right to defend ourselves with those arms.

then why can a lot of arms land us in jail?
let me guess. its illegal for the government to do it but they do it

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Xtrozero

It says "arms". Be that knives, clubs, our fists, and, of course, guns. Implicit is the protection of the right to defend ourselves with those arms.

I disagree, to "bear arms" is considered that of what one person would carry and fight with, and arms from back then today is short for firearms, other wise they might have said the right to bear weapons. Arms in general opens up a wide range of firearms, but all would need to be of a single person use to actually be able to bear it too.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Depending upon what sort of arms we're talking about, it shouldn't land one in jail. Unless you're using them for nefarious reasons. That that seems to get forgotten is the fault of those of us who should be watching for that.

The mere fact of being in possession of, just for fun, 100 AR-15's shouldn't be anyone's concern until actions reveal that some sort of wrong-doing is occurring.

It should come down to actions, not "mights".

a reply to: Xtrozero

You're probably right in that interpretation of "arms", as being short for "firearms". I'm fairly sure that by arms they meant single user, not crew served, thus my speculation on knives, etc...--but if it's not specifically forbidden, shouldn't it be allowed? ...and no, I'm not advocating for ownership of nuclear weapons, or any such silliness--though, one must admit, having a nuclear bomb hangin' on the wall would be a conversation starter...

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: rickymouse
If they ban semiautomatic rifles, that would mean sixty percent of guns in this country would be illegal.

This doesn't bother me. I think some sort of balance has to be struck with guns because they're popular, but my personal stance is that I would have no problem eliminating guns with a few exceptions (hunting, gun clubs, and certain rural areas).

Well, you can give up your guns if you want. If thieves think you may have a gun in your home, chances are they will not break in. Us gun owners having guns makes people without guns safer since criminals do not know if a house has a gun or not, so they probably will not take unnecessary chances right now. When they do know that guns are not in houses, then there will be more burglaries. Ask people from Australia, they will tell you what I say is true. More crimes but less deaths from guns, but other violent deaths actually slightly increased. There are auzies here, ask some of them.

a reply to: rickymouse

A large decrease in gun deaths and a small increase in non gun deaths is still a net gain in lives saved.

I think there are other options available too. Among two possibilities:
1. Going after the ammunition sold such that only less lethal ammo like rubber bullets and bean bag rounds can be bought and sold.
2. Giving each person an ammunition quota that is sufficient for personal defense, but wouldn't be enough for offense. Register every single bullet and only replace what is legitimately used. This would help to prevent would be shooters from getting enough bullets together to commit their crimes.

a reply to: rickymouse

If thieves think you may have a gun in your home, chances are they will not break in.

Unless they want to steal your guns. That happened a couple of years ago in my building.

a reply to: seagull

The mere fact of being in possession of, just for fun, 100 AR-15's shouldn't be anyone's concern until actions reveal that some sort of wrong-doing is occurring.

Wouldn't owning 100 AR-15s either be an indication of intended insurrection... or the sort of "mental illness" the NRA wants to punish?

In the most simplistic possible way of going about it to remind people of how not "god-given" something really is, you need to remember that something is bestowed upon us or not by ourselves, and is entirely dependent on the wants -- and determination to get/keep it -- of humans.

The pendulum always swings the other way. The 2nd was shoehorned in, it wasn't original to the document along with 26 other amendments, it can always be shoehorned back out someday if the people so decide & push for it. Just like booze prohibition, the 18th was in there in full not too long ago. We giveth, and we taketh amendments as we see fit. Don't forget that.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: rickymouse

If thieves think you may have a gun in your home, chances are they will not break in.

Unless they want to steal your guns. That happened a couple of years ago in my building.

Yeah, that does happen, you do not start bragging about the guns you own in public or at gun shows, there are people listening there who want to find out where to break into sometimes.

Also if you frequent stores and are looking to buy guns or buy them, there could be someone there casing the place, trying to find people to rob. Gun owners often like to brag about their guns, beware of saying a lot in public.

Your guns only protect you when you are in the house, not when you are gone. When your gone, they become a liability if people know you have them. By someone in New York posting people's names who own guns on the net from records, that person did two things. He caused people who owned the guns to be targeted and he told criminals who did not have guns. That put everyone at risk, the criminals knew who did not have weapons to protect themselves so they could break in when they were home. Stupid is Stupid.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: rickymouse

A large decrease in gun deaths and a small increase in non gun deaths is still a net gain in lives saved.

I think there are other options available too. Among two possibilities:
1. Going after the ammunition sold such that only less lethal ammo like rubber bullets and bean bag rounds can be bought and sold.
2. Giving each person an ammunition quota that is sufficient for personal defense, but wouldn't be enough for offense. Register every single bullet and only replace what is legitimately used. This would help to prevent would be shooters from getting enough bullets together to commit their crimes.

It was not a large decrease in gun deaths and the non gun deaths increased nearly as much as the deaths of gun deaths did. but, say it decreased gun deaths from a thousand down to a hundred in a year, that sounds considerable. But non gun deaths, say from knives and major assaults went from three thousand to say almost four thousand. These are both hypothetical figures, just used as an example. So the percentage of gun deaths went down yet the violent killings remained the same, instead of guns people beat others to death or stabbed them more. I looked at the statistics done by a canadian think tank and this was evident. Robberies in Ausi went up almost double too.

So overall, the life savings percentage they state is irrelevant. Nearly as many people died but it looks better on the graphs the ones who initiated the action created, they did not post the whole truth and omitted anything that made their past decision look bad.

That is common practice actually, cherry picking parameters and evidence to protect your beliefs and actions is happening all the time. You have to look at the WHOLE picture. Not focus on what you believe is relevant.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

What you have said is utter BS and a good indication of utter ignorance. Pat yourself on the back. Bet you are a Trump voter.

Please continue your personal attacks against anyone who believes in concepts and ideas that don't agree with yours. It makes the discourse around here so enjoyable to those of us who look forward to TRUE debate.

You might want to read the T & C again, just a friendly hint!

Py

a reply to: DJW001

I don't think so...

Personally, I wouldn't own that many...I'm not the biggest fan of 'em.

It could, I suppose, be construed as a mental problem. That doesn't necessarily equate to dangerous, though, does it?

As for the insurrection, why? Could be the guy wants an AR for every day of the year, and is nearly a third of the way there...

Is it weird? Yes. I'd have to say it would be weird. Dangerous? Not necessarily. What are his actions with those AR's? Isn't that supposed to be the defining thing?

a reply to: seagull

It does not matter whether it is a sign of mental illness or insurrection. The NRA wants to put the government in the position to make those judgements. I fear that more than I do constraints like mandatory insurance or regular safety exams, like apply to automobile licenses.

JBurns

Our RKBA (and other rights) exist independently from the Constitution. This is why they're unalienable, god-given rights as opposed to rights granted by a government/group of men.

Utter nonsense! There is no such thing as inalienable or God-given, they are just ideas and interpretations. All 'rights' are nothing more than agreements arrived at by representatives of the people for social utilitarian purposes. The representatives derive their authorship power by consent of the people to represent them, however, today this relationship has become so loosely connected that it barely exists.

The Founders (as representatives) simply 'claimed' (without evidence to support) certain conditions and called them 'inalienable' or 'God-given', the claim itself makes neither real. Claims and rights only have power while agreement (between people, because there is no other agency to agree with) remains in place.

The possibility that you believe God gave rights is utterly irrelevant. Another human being could come along and take that right away from you, either by force or deceptive coercion. An imaginary deity has nothing to do with anything.

Society persists somewhat stutteringly because most tend to abide by the laws and regulations laid down to supposedly help society function at its most optimum, but centuries old concepts cannot truly reflect the needs of modern society, they become outdated and outmoded, and oft' times impedances to the functioning of modern society. The 2nd Amendment is one such outdated and outmoded concept, and it is time it was repealed.