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.
Flying FuManchu said:


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.

Right well guns and axes have been used in sports as well.

If you want to use guns for sports then fine use guns that are modified for sports only or keep all sport guns kept locked on sporting locations.

How many killing sprees have you seen done with a bow? How many banks held up with concealed bows?

You keep trying to bring "other" things that can be used as a weapon and we can go on all day and list items that can be used. But the fact is that guns are the number one weapon used for murder.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Right well guns and axes have been used in sports as well.


So we agree that you over-simplified the purposes/ uses of a gun... thats good that we agree on something.


If you want to use guns for sports then fine use guns that are modified for sports only or keep all sport guns kept locked on sporting locations.

Doesn't that take away from other aspects of owning a gun which are for protection and collection? Of course you've heard these points before.

How many killing sprees have you seen done with a bow? How many banks held up with concealed bows?


Guns are efficient which is why they are more appealing to use as opposed to a bow as your post points out. There is no denying that. How many people who have used guns to rob banks, etc. used guns appropriated by legal means? Well, I'll tell you.... I have no idea.

You keep trying to bring "other" things that can be used as a weapon and we can go on all day and list items that can be used. But the fact is that guns are the number one weapon used for murder.


I'm sure once the government decides to BAN guns, knives will become the number one weapon used for murder. If that isn't the case, then gun laws would be a waste of time, huh.
 
Last edited:
Flying FuManchu said:

So we agree that you over-simplified the purposes/ uses of a gun... thats good that we agree on something.
Yes I should have said original purpose.:|


Flying FuManchu said:

Doesn't that take away from other aspects of owning a gun which are for protection and collection? Of course you've heard these points before.
Yes, and I don't care. If you want to collect assault rifles or whatever then they have to be modified. There should be legal and illegal guns, period. No one's shown me a reason why one should own an assault rifle.


Flying FuManchu said:

I'm sure once the government decides to BAN guns, knives will become the number one weapon used for murder. If that isn't the case, then gun laws would be a waste of time, huh.

What kind of logic is this? You eliminate the means to kill at far range. How many murders or drive bys happen at an arms reach? How many deaths occur from indiscriminate knives that weren't meant for the victim.

Come on!
 
I agree with the Libertarian's Party position on gun
control. I also agree with the Second Ammendment and the
right of law abiding citizens to own firearms.

A few other thoughts:

-What's up with this term "assault rifle" ???
Does this mean how certain rifles look "evil" ???

All firearms(single shot rifles), knives, baseball bats, stones, sticks, pencils, gasoline....all of these and other items could
be used to harm.

Evil people intent on doing evil will always find
a weapon.

-Since Great Britain banned private ownership the crime rate has
risen.

-In the U.S. Vermont has a genuine right to carry law (i.e., requires no permits) and yet boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

-Check the U.S. cities with the strictists gun laws (and crime rates) and compare.

The trouble is not inanimate objects (firearms) but people with evil intent.
 
the iron horse said:
-In the U.S. Vermont has a genuine right to carry law (i.e., requires no permits) and yet boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean rated 100% with the NRA.

Melon
 
(i hope this does not throw this thread off-topic)

"Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean rated 100% with the NRA."

Melon


That is true. Howard Dean was not the far-left candidate as he was often portrayed by some. Although I voted Libertarian, I liked Dean.


OK>>>back to topic :)
 
the iron horse said:
I agree with the Libertarian's Party position on gun
control. I also agree with the Second Ammendment and the
right of law abiding citizens to own firearms.

A few other thoughts:

-What's up with this term "assault rifle" ???
Does this mean how certain rifles look "evil" ???

All firearms(single shot rifles), knives, baseball bats, stones, sticks, pencils, gasoline....all of these and other items could
be used to harm.

Evil people intent on doing evil will always find
a weapon.

-Since Great Britain banned private ownership the crime rate has
risen.

-In the U.S. Vermont has a genuine right to carry law (i.e., requires no permits) and yet boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

-Check the U.S. cities with the strictists gun laws (and crime rates) and compare.

The trouble is not inanimate objects (firearms) but people with evil intent.


you have so many non facts

I don't know where to begin
 
the iron horse said:


-What's up with this term "assault rifle" ???
Does this mean how certain rifles look "evil" ???
Already been defined. Look in thread

the iron horse said:

All firearms(single shot rifles), knives, baseball bats, stones, sticks, pencils, gasoline....all of these and other items could
be used to harm.

Evil people intent on doing evil will always find
a weapon.
Already been addressed. If you and I met in an alley and we had 10 yards between us what would you rather have me(the evil one) holding?

a. gun
b. bat,
c. pencil
d.stone
e. b-d


the iron horse said:

-Since Great Britain banned private ownership the crime rate has
risen.
I'd like to see some facts.

the iron horse said:

-In the U.S. Vermont has a genuine right to carry law (i.e., requires no permits) and yet boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.
Well let's compare populations, econonomics, etc

guns don't = crime rates

but no guns will decrease violent crime.

You're talking apples and oranges.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


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


Other than the grenade launcher, why would these factors justify banning of a weapon?
 
nbcrusader said:


Other than the grenade launcher, why would these factors justify banning of a weapon?

Why would anyone need a high powered rifle with a clip that holds multiple rounds? If you're using it for hunting and you can't hit your target with the three in the chamber than you have no reason to be hunting.

Folding and telescoping stocks sacrifice accuracy for concealability. Why does someone need to conceal a rifle?

Why would any legal gun user need a flash suppresor? It's illegal to hunt at night. The only thing I can think of is if you're hunting at night or attacking someone and you don't want them to know where you are.

I could go on but basically it's all the same. None of these items have any use in hunting or defending oneself.
 
"Why would anyone need a high powered rifle with a clip that holds multiple rounds? If you're using it for hunting and you can't hit your target with the three in the chamber than you have no reason to be hunting.

Folding and telescoping stocks sacrifice accuracy for concealability. Why does someone need to conceal a rifle?

Why would any legal gun user need a flash suppresor? It's illegal to hunt at night. The only thing I can think of is if you're hunting at night or attacking someone and you don't want them to know where you are.

I could go on but basically it's all the same. None of these items have any use in hunting or defending oneself."



Did you not get the point from a previous post, that one reason for the Second Ammendment was to allow the citizens a defense against a government gone wild?


Why are you so willing to give all power to a Police State?

One of the first orders of Hitler was to disarm the German population.

He's a great poster boy for gun control.
 
the iron horse said:

Did you not get the point from a previous post, that one reason for the Second Ammendment was to allow the citizens a defense against a government gone wild?


Why are you so willing to give all power to a Police State?

And did you not get the point made earlier that there's no fucking way we could defend ourselves against the government? How are you going to defend against tanks, grenades, bulletproof vests, missles and the like.

That argument is outdated and dead.
 
"And did you not get the point made earlier that there's no fucking way we could defend ourselves against the government? How are you going to defend against tanks, grenades, bulletproof vests, missles and the like.

That argument is outdated and dead."


My argument might be outdate and dead, but what is your solution?

Should we give all power to the state?


Not one Jewish person walked into the death camps with a firearm in hand

and some fought (armed) against the evil.

I'm not saying my little shotgun can match the power of a modern army, I'm just saying don't take all my water pistols and rubber bands away.
 
the iron horse said:
"And did you not get the point made earlier that there's no fucking way we could defend ourselves against the government? How are you going to defend against tanks, grenades, bulletproof vests, missles and the like.

That argument is outdated and dead."


My argument might be outdate and dead, but what is your solution?

Should we give all power to the state?


Not one Jewish person walked into the death camps with a firearm in hand

and some fought (armed) against the evil.

I'm not saying my little shotgun can match the power of a modern army, I'm just saying don't take all my water pistols and rubber bands away.

If arms equal power than the state's already one. Sorry to tell you.

Or we could be terrorist and steal nuclear arms.
 
"If arms equal power than the state's already one. Sorry to tell you."

Do you really believe the state now has all power over your freedom? Have you given all your liberty and promise of security to the State?

"Or we could be terrorist and steal nuclear arms."

Why would I want to do that? I'm just trying to live my life in my own little acre of the world. I pray for peace.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Why would anyone need a high powered rifle with a clip that holds multiple rounds? If you're using it for hunting and you can't hit your target with the three in the chamber than you have no reason to be hunting.

Folding and telescoping stocks sacrifice accuracy for concealability. Why does someone need to conceal a rifle?

Why would any legal gun user need a flash suppresor? It's illegal to hunt at night. The only thing I can think of is if you're hunting at night or attacking someone and you don't want them to know where you are.

I could go on but basically it's all the same. None of these items have any use in hunting or defending oneself.

When dealing with rights, we cannot analyze them by "why would anyone need" - but rather is there "strict scrutiny" of the need for the legislative restriction.

Such laws must not be vague or substantially over or under inclusive and must further an overriding state interest yet drawn narrowly enough avoid any unnecessary intrusion on a Constitutional right.

The definitions used above are overly broad and do not substantiate a public safety interest by themselves.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
That argument is outdated and dead.

The proper way to address an "outdated" provision of the Constitution is by Amendment.


Same thing with the 14th Amendment. It states that all who are born in the US are citizens of the US. It was meant to grant citizenship to the slaves.

Now, anyone who gives birth here (whether they arrive legally or illegally) - that child is a US citizen. Not the intent of the provision, but can only be changed by Amendment.
 
nbcrusader said:


When dealing with rights, we cannot analyze them by "why would anyone need" - but rather is there "strict scrutiny" of the need for the legislative restriction.

Such laws must not be vague or substantially over or under inclusive and must further an overriding state interest yet drawn narrowly enough avoid any unnecessary intrusion on a Constitutional right.

The definitions used above are overly broad and do not substantiate a public safety interest by themselves.

I see nothing too broad about these definitions. They worked(as far as being clearly defined) for 10 years until Bush let the bill expire.
 
nbcrusader said:


The proper way to address an "outdated" provision of the Constitution is by Amendment.


Same thing with the 14th Amendment. It states that all who are born in the US are citizens of the US. It was meant to grant citizenship to the slaves.

Now, anyone who gives birth here (whether they arrive legally or illegally) - that child is a US citizen. Not the intent of the provision, but can only be changed by Amendment.

Two completely different issues that need to be dealt with differently.
 
nbcrusader said:
Constitutional rights should be dealt with in a consistent manner. That is an essential part of liberty.

I agree but I'm saying the change in the two laws is entirely different. 14th ammendment is providing something entirely different than it's original intent, but we can argue if that change is good or bad. 2nd ammendment doesn't hold to it's original intent, but we're now changing the intent to fit our needs.
 
5-Year-Old Finds Parents' Bodies After Shooting
Man Found Dead After Mother Killed, Father Injured


A 5-year-old found the bullet-riddled bodies of her dead mother and seriously injured father early Monday morning in the aftermath of an apparent feud, according to WKMG-TV in Orlando.

Authorities said David Johnson of New Smyrna Beach went to the home of Julie Hernlen, 31, and Aeneas Hernlen, 29, located on Ellison Avenue and Jungle Road at about 3 a.m. Monday and shot the couple.

The woman died in the assault and her husband remained in serious condition Monday night.

The victims' 5-year-old daughter was inside the house at the time of the shooting and was awakened by the sound of gunfire,WKMG-TV reported. She found her parents shot and called 911.

"There is blood coming out of my dad's mouth and he fell off the bed," the little girl said in a 911 called aired on WKMG-TV Monday night.

The 911 dispatcher asked the girl where her mother was.

"I don't know, I think they are dead," the girl replied.
 
Back
Top Bottom