With the Colorado shooting earlier this year and the Oregon shooting yesterday. I felt it pertinent to see what the Coli felt about guns/gun control/assault weapons/ect.
I'm indifferent about the 2nd amendment, i like the fact that if i want a gun i can get one...however, the origins of the 2nd were to give the citizens the right to rise up against the government with arms if need be....
thats a virtual impossibility now, the Army has tanks and we don't and i wouldn't want these crazy mofos with tanks.
I guess my biggest stance is that guns ARE NOT like nukes. There is no Mutually Assured Destruction with guns, i don't fear having this M4 because i might end all human life...nope i'm gonna want to shoot you before you shoot me.
So with that said, i'm interested to hear the pro and anti sides of this debate...and hopefully some of the European brehs can chime in as well...
thats a virtual impossibility now, the Army has tanks and we don't and i wouldn't want these crazy mofos with tanks.
The Law clearly states:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Militia is defined right in the US Code:
Quote:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The traditional concept of a militia at the tie, borrowing from English law, included this organized militia and unorganized militia. The Supreme Court and States have always interperted this to mean average citizens. It was re-affirmed by the court recently(SOURCE).
Now the interesting part: "Arms".
Arms differ from munitions in military usage. Arms are something that is explicitly carried by one person to use in warfare. Knives, handguns, rifles, etc. Munitions is what one would classify as nuclear weapons, rockets, etc.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that an individual may possess the direct equivalent in arms to what a person in the military uses.
Quote:
Quote:
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The traditional concept of a militia at the tie, borrowing from English law, included this organized militia and unorganized militia. The Supreme Court and States have always interperted this to mean average citizens. It was re-affirmed by the court recently(SOURCE).
Now the interesting part: "Arms".
Arms differ from munitions in military usage. Arms are something that is explicitly carried by one person to use in warfare. Knives, handguns, rifles, etc. Munitions is what one would classify as nuclear weapons, rockets, etc.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that an individual may possess the direct equivalent in arms to what a person in the military uses.
dope post, i always wondered the difference between arms and munitions...i feel dumb now for using them interchangeably. But to have what the military uses is insanity, what the hell could a regular person do with all that **** besides kill a buncha innocents.
dope post, i always wondered the difference between arms and munitions...i feel dumb now for using them interchangeably. But to have what the military uses is insanity, what the hell could a regular person do with all that **** besides kill a buncha innocents.
People have killed innocents with planes and cars.
The thing is, recent history has shown us, that Armies almost come down on the side of the people during revolutions. You will have the commands and units that might stay loyal to the government in charge, but a lot won't be. Egypt was a great example.
The best example was Venezuela. The older power structure and some Generals conspired to commit a coup of Chavez, and almost succeeded. It was due an armed and angry populace and a loyal army contingency that Chavez kept his power.
u should have the right to hand guns, automatic rifles like ak47 and ar15s should be banned
Cosign. I mean, a handgun is good for personal protection and for the home. Shotguns are good for home protection/hunting and rifles for hunting too. But theres really no need for a civilian to have automatic weapons imo
Jutt is reading The Art of war, 48 Laws of powers, playing 2 games of chess simultaneously while passing out rep like a Bawse To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .... How does he do it? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
T h e | B r e h t h r e n | M o v e m e n t
■■■■■■■■■■■
People have killed innocents with planes and cars.
The thing is, recent history has shown us, that Armies almost come down on the side of the people during revolutions. You will have the commands and units that might stay loyal to the government in charge, but a lot won't be. Egypt was a great example.
The best example was Venezuela. The older power structure and some Generals conspired to commit a coup of Chavez, and almost succeeded. It was due an armed and angry populace and a loyal army contingency that Chavez kept his power.
An armed citizenry is important, even if the military is more well equipped.
I don't TOTALLY disagree, but some sort of system needs to be in place for assualt weapons, they are so destructive. And if the armed forces usually join the side of the people then wouldn't that make having SO MANY arms in the general populace redundant?
u should have the right to hand guns, automatic rifles like ak47 and ar15s should be banned
Why should these be banned? The 2nd amendment was written to protect the citizens against the government. If the government has fully automatic AK's and AR's, the citizens should as well. Its a means to protect from tyranny. Ask King George.
Why should these be banned? The 2nd amendment was written to protect the citizens against the government. If the government has fully automatic AK's and AR's, the citizens should as well. Its a means to protect from tyranny. Ask King George.
because those are weapons for war and in the wrong hands they could kill many
thankfully this recent incident and the batman theater these two guys had horrible aim
a ar15 in a hands of trained individual were talking about 50-100 people dead
__________________
Does a bear take a sh!t in the woods and wipe his azz with a fluffy white rabbit?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TBH I had made a rule to myself to stop discussing arms control with Americans because usually as soon as you advocate some kind of control you're "a socialist/communist/naïve Eurofag" etc. But I'm bored at work
I think OP nailed it in the in his post: having guns today WONT protect US citizens against the military IF the govt decides to turn on its own population. First of all I have no idea WHY the US govt would even consider doing that (When has it?). Second, if it did, ain't nothing your rifle will do against tanks, planes and drones. So using that as a reason to having guns makes no sense.
Meaning the only reason to have guns now will be "protect one's house/security". While somewhat understandable, that's kind of worrying because it shows a VERY deep distrust towards your own gvt/fellow citizens. Which is strange because the ones using that argument are often the very same saying "America rules", yet they feel the need to protect themselves against fellow Americans and their OWN DAMN GVT.
Another reasonning is often: well if the bad guys have them, the good guys need them too. But that's also flawed, good laws could stop bad guys from having guns too IF the gvt really wanted that. All kinds of countries manage to do so, no reason the US couldn't.
Then of course you have shootings every 6 months, but somehow people still use the old "guns don't kill people, people do" line, which one of the all-time retarded slogans IMO. But as all retarded slogans, it's easy and catchy, so it works. Some guy just accidentaly killed his own baby when his gun went off, that's the kind of problem you don't have WHEN YOU DONT OWN A GUN.
I really just don't understand how Americans cry and talk about "tragedies" whenever some kid shoots up a school or a movie theatre (with legally purchased arms and munitions) but then defend a lax gun control. You always someone saying "Well, if ALL the kids had guns, that wouldn't have happened"? I mean, am I the only one that finds giving guns to everyone NOT the best way to go about this?
I hate the "cultural" argument, but I think that Canada and Switzerland have about the same gun per capita ratio, yet have WAY less gun violence. So, maybe it's true that "people kill people", but if you can't trust said people, just don't give them guns to begin with.
I think gun control is a very important situation and as Americans we are free to decide how we want to control our guns. I mean shooting a gun sideways is not very accurate. if we want gun control we need to aim the right way.
__________________
" From the womb to the tomb, I presume the unpredictable."
TBH I had made a rule to myself to stop discussing arms control with Americans because usually as soon as you advocate some kind of control you're "a socialist/communist/naïve Eurofag" etc. But I'm bored at work
I think OP nailed it in the in his post: having guns today WONT protect US citizens against the military IF the govt decides to turn on its own population. First of all I have no idea WHY the US govt would even consider doing that (When has it?). Second, if it did, ain't nothing your rifle will do against tanks, planes and drones. So using that as a reason to having guns makes no sense.
Meaning the only reason to have guns now will be "protect one's house/security". While somewhat understandable, that's kind of worrying because it shows a VERY deep distrust towards your own gvt/fellow citizens. Which is strange because the ones using that argument are often the very same saying "America rules", yet they feel the need to protect themselves against fellow Americans and their OWN DAMN GVT.
Another reasonning is often: well if the bad guys have them, the good guys need them too. But that's also flawed, good laws could stop bad guys from having guns too IF the gvt really wanted that. All kinds of countries manage to do so, no reason the US couldn't.
Then of course you have shootings every 6 months, but somehow people still use the old "guns don't kill people, people do" line, which one of the all-time retarded slogans IMO. But as all retarded slogans, it's easy and catchy, so it works. Some guy just accidentaly killed his own baby when his gun went off, that's the kind of problem you don't have WHEN YOU DONT OWN A GUN.
I really just don't understand how Americans cry and talk about "tragedies" whenever some kid shoots up a school or a movie theatre (with legally purchased arms and munitions) but then defend a lax gun control. You always someone saying "Well, if ALL the kids had guns, that wouldn't have happened"? I mean, am I the only one that finds giving guns to everyone NOT the best way to go about this?
I hate the "cultural" argument, but I think that Canada and Switzerland have about the same gun per capita ratio, yet have WAY less gun violence. So, maybe it's true that "people kill people", but if you can't trust said people, just don't give them guns to begin with.
Oh, so its dumb Americans who are out of control and because of lax gun laws they decide to murder people? You are out of your mind. What happened in Norway last year? Europe has its own issues with guns. A psychotic mind is just that. Guns dont kill people. People do. Its REALLY that simple.
because those are weapons for war and in the wrong hands they could kill many
thankfully this recent incident and the batman theater these two guys had horrible aim
a ar15 in a hands of trained individual were talking about 50-100 people dead
Like most people, you are VERY misinformed about guns. This is the problem with all the liberals asking to ban certain guns. One clip in an AR would not kill 50-100 people. Not even close. Learn your guns before you fight against them.
400Daps
Let's Talk About Gun Control
