The 2nd Amendment

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Macfistowannabe

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
4,197
Location
Ohio
Should we overturn it?
Revise it?

What do you think?

The Second Amendment

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.
 
It should be kept in context.
It was written in the 1780s.
Muskets, powder and balls?



the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is infringed everyday.

The NRA are just a bunch of wackos, are they delusional?

We can not bear large arms, rockets, bazookas, cannons, flame throwers, etc.
Gun control exists and is constitutional.
 
I don't think just anybody should be allowed to buy an assault weapon or something other than a sporting weapon (like a hunting rifle or bow). We don't need to take them away completely, but there needs to be a much more rigorous screening/application process. Also, I support the idea that if you own a gun of any kind, you MUST keep it in a gun case that is "certified". This would prevent little kids from using their parent's guns to kill classmates. My dad has a bunch of guns and he just leaves them lying anywhere in the house. I wish he had a real case/closet for them b/c he's had them all stolen before.
 
I have no problem with certain limits on gun ownership or purchase, but, as I've said before, I believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms for hunting, target shooting, or personal protection. (I have other issues with hunting not related to guns, though.)

Obviously no one needs to own an Uzi. Additionally, I had to take a test and meet certain requirements to have a driver's license; I would find similar requirements perfectly reasonable for gun ownership. But I would have a great big problem with repealing the 2nd amendment altogether.
 
The 2nd ammendment was designed so that the citizens could keep the government in check. Well you can't own tanks, missiles, or even bulletproof vests so there is no way a militia will be able to defend itself against it's government.

It does not makes sense in todays society and is often one of the misused ammendments we have.

I'm not for total disarmament. Hunting rifles and a few handguns I would allow, everything else melt it down.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
I don't think just anybody should be allowed to buy an assault weapon or something other than a sporting weapon (like a hunting rifle or bow). We don't need to take them away completely, but there needs to be a much more rigorous screening/application process. Also, I support the idea that if you own a gun of any kind, you MUST keep it in a gun case that is "certified". This would prevent little kids from using their parent's guns to kill classmates.

I can completely agree with this.

Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
My dad has a bunch of guns and he just leaves them lying anywhere in the house. I wish he had a real case/closet for them b/c he's had them all stolen before.

:yikes:...ooh, boy...that's not good.

Angela
 
I say keep the Second Amendment and I hope liberals hoard a bunch of AK-47s.

Melon
 
melon said:
I say keep the Second Amendment and I hope liberals hoard a bunch of AK-47s.

Melon
and gay, lesbian, bi communities.


The 2nd ammendment was designed so that the citizens could keep the government in check

I guess there may be something to this.

God help us if we have to protect us decent folk from the right-wing christian? fanatics.
It seems they are getting more dangerous as time goes by.
Will we have to fight to keep America free?
God Bless America
 
Last edited:
Here are a few questions I have...

Does gun control interfere with the 2nd amendment?

Are assault weapons protected by the 2nd amendment, or should they be restricted?

Is the time of the 2nd amendment relevant, where they primarily had bigger, more visable firearms?

Should citizens have the right to carry a firearm in public?
 
Macfistowannabe said:

Does gun control interfere with the 2nd amendment?
Most would say so.

Macfistowannabe said:

Are assault weapons protected by the 2nd amendment, or should they be restricted?
They are now. But no one should own a assault rifle.

Macfistowannabe said:

Is the time of the 2nd amendment relevant, where they primarily had bigger, more visable firearms?
I don't think it has anything to do with bigger more visable arms, but yes the time is relevant.

Macfistowannabe said:

Should citizens have the right to carry a firearm in public?

No.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Does gun control interfere with the 2nd amendment?

Possibly

Macfistowannabe said:
Are assault weapons protected by the 2nd amendment, or should they be restricted?

What is an "assult weapon"? Fully automatic? Scary looking?

Macfistowannabe said:
Is the time of the 2nd amendment relevant, where they primarily had bigger, more visable firearms?

Not necessarily. People had handguns and rifles back then as well.

Macfistowannabe said:
Should citizens have the right to carry a firearm in public?

They already do, if you get the right permit.
 
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe said:
Should we overturn it?
Revise it?

What do you think?

The Second Amendment

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.

I'd say overturn it, but that is politically impossible in the United States. In my opinion, unless your in the military, police force, or other law enforcement, I don't think you should be allowed to own a firearm.

Today, the ownership of firearms by private citizens does not give them the capability that the second amendent envisioned in the 1700s. Because of that fact, and the fact that the US military/law enforcement takes care of the "security needs" that are the stated reason for the amendment, it should now be overturned.
 
Re: Re: The 2nd Amendment

STING2 said:
Today, the ownership of firearms by private citizens does not give them the capability that the second amendent envisioned in the 1700s. Because of that fact, and the fact that the US military/law enforcement takes care of the "security needs" that are the stated reason for the amendment, it should now be overturned.

Remember, the British took care of "security needs" in the 1700's.
 
Does gun control interfere with the 2nd amendment?

I don't think it generally does. I think that if we are going to support the legalization of firearms, we have to be cautious about it.



Are assault weapons protected by the 2nd amendment, or should they be restricted?

I don't understand why an ordinary citizen would need an assault rifle. I do however think you should have the right to protect yourself.



Is the time of the 2nd amendment relevant, where they primarily had bigger, more visable firearms?

I don't know. That's why I asked.



Should citizens have the right to carry a firearm in public?

Absolutely not. No sense in trying to make America more like Texas.
 
Re: Re: Re: The 2nd Amendment

nbcrusader said:


Remember, the British took care of "security needs" in the 1700's.

Actually, Militia's from all over the colonies helped the British protect their "security needs" in the 1700s. There were 3 wars with the French and Indians.
 
I am a stereotype-defiant, non-firearm owning Southerner.

It is my observation that the NRA types ignore the "well-regulated" part and the anti-gun types ignore the "right of the people" part. I am somewhere in the middle.

~U2Alabama
 
nbcrusader said:

What is an "assult weapon"? Fully automatic? Scary looking?

Now I don't know much about guns, but I consider an "assault" weapon to be any weapon you carry to defend yourself from another human being or intend to use it against another human being. To me, there are sport weapons, like hunting riflesor guns you have for the shooting range, and assault weapons, which are anything else. If some people really need these weapons to feel safe and defend themself, whatever, but me personally, I could NEVER feel safe with an assault weapon in my house and I don't think I could ever use it in defense either.
 
nbcrusader said:

What is an "assult weapon"? Fully automatic? Scary looking?


The following defines an Assault Weapon.

A semi-automatic rifle which accepts a detachable magazine and has at least two (2) of the below listed features:

1.a folding or telescoping stock
2.a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously below the action of the weapon
3.a bayonet lug/mount
4. a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accept a flash suppressor
5.a grenade launcher

A semi-automatic shotgun which has at least two (2) of the below listed features:

1.a folding or telescoping stock
2.a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously below the action of weapon
3.a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five (5) rounds
4.ability to accept a detachable magazine

-------------------------------------------------

If someone can give me a good solid reason as to why someone should be able to own one of these I'll personally mail you 50 bucks.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Another great southern stereotype.:huh:
Yet ironic coming from a Bush supporter...
Actually, Texas is quite different from the rest of the US, seemingly. I don't mean for the comment to be insulting as much as thought-provoking. I heavily disagree with firearms in public, and no, I don't agree with Bush on everything.
 
Re: Re: The 2nd Amendment

STING2 said:
I'd say overturn it, but that is politically impossible in the United States. In my opinion, unless your in the military, police force, or other law enforcement, I don't think you should be allowed to own a firearm.
I would say that you can make a baseball bat a weapon, you can make your vehicle a weapon, you can even make Raid a weapon. People will always have a way to inflict harm on others. It wouldn't be comforting to me if my neighbor owned a firearm, but if he felt that it was necessary for defense or hunting, I suppose I could handle it.
 
Re: Re: Re: The 2nd Amendment

Macfistowannabe said:
I would say that you can make a baseball bat a weapon, you can make your vehicle a weapon, you can even make Raid a weapon.

I think this is one of the worse arguments against gun control. You can take your chances out running a bat, you can even run behind a tree to avoid a car. But I'm not going to take any chances out running a bullet.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: The 2nd Amendment

BonoVoxSupastar said:


I think this is one of the worse arguments against gun control. You can take your chances out running a bat, you can even run behind a tree to avoid a car. But I'm not going to take any chances out running a bullet.
I actually see the logic behind gun control to some extent. You DON'T want a criminal roaming around with a gun, that's for sure. I think there are two extremes in this issue, but perhaps that's just me being neutral about it.
 
'Beheading' horror in street

By Richard Edwards and Chris Millar, Evening Standard
14 March 2005


A man was beheaded in a frenzied and prolonged axe attack in a London street today.


The axeman, smartly-dressed and in his thirties, felled his victim with one blow and then struck repeatedly "as if he was chopping wood".

The assault lasted several minutes near the Hampstead Theatre in Belsize Park. The attacker ignored his victim's screams and the pleas of two women passers-by and workmen. He stopped when police arrived. He then put down the axe near the body. He was described as looking "emotionless and cool" throughout.

When asked why he had done it, he told officers: "It's complicated. It's private."

Mothers on the morning school run were among those who saw the killing in Eton Avenue.

Police said the victim was in his sixties and is thought to have lived nearby.

Officers do not think it was a random attack and understand that the men knew each other.

A neighbour said there had been a series of domestic rows at a nearby address.

A scaffolder working nearby saw a man carrying an axe in one hand above his head as he ran towards his victim. The men were seen to exchange a few words.

Seconds later the axeman struck the first of a series of heavy blows which continued when the victim lay slumped on the pavement in a pool of blood.

The workman said: "It was unremitting. The man with the axe ran at his victim and just laid into him.

"He brought it down on his head and floored him. The victim had tried to defend himself with his arms and I heard him shout something. But it was hopeless.

"Within seconds he was on the floor and his head had been split open. There was blood pouring from his head and spilling onto the pavement. It was horrific."

Avelina Rodrigues, 48, said the attacker ignored her pleas to stop as he brought blow after blow down upon his victim, leaving the body badly mutilated.

She said: "I heard the first thuds of the axe as it hit the man's head. I thought it was the sound of a child being hit by a car.

"I ran to the front of the house and could see a man, smartly dressed, tall and thin, with the axe in his hand.

"The axeman saw me but he just ignored me. He hacked his victim's head, cutting it as if it was a block of wood for a fire. His victim was unconscious on the ground, but he kept bringing his axe down on him.

"I begged him to stop and he just looked at me without emotion. There was no anger in his face, he did not seem crazy. He was just coolly finishing off his victim. He wanted to destroy him. ."

Another woman passing in a car stopped and pleaded with the man to stop his attack. He also ignored pleas from builders working nearby. Police arrested a man at the scene and he is being held for questioning at Holborn police station.

Eton Avenue is known as one the most exclusive streets in north London with a host of multi-million-pound properties. Belsize Park is also the home to a host of celebrities, including Jude Law, his estranged wife, Sadie Frost, Gwyneth Paltrow and her rock star husband, Chris Martin.


link to article

I'd prefer the outlawing of axes as well
 
secondamendment.356.home_thumb.jpg
 
Flying FuManchu said:


I'd prefer the outlawing of axes as well

Let's see

Purpose of axe: Cut down trees, chop wood, and or kill from close range.

Purpose of gun: to kill from the range of 1" to 300 yards

Nope I'd still take my chances with an axe.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Let's see

Purpose of axe: Cut down trees, chop wood, and or kill from close range.

Purpose of gun: to kill from the range of 1" to 300 yards

Nope I'd still take my chances with an axe.

That's over-simplifying things...

The purpose of a bow and arrow is to kill in a specific range as well but over time its been used for sports, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom