In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2369
Online now 2347 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Regardless of why it is an amendment it is still an amendment. It isn't upheld because there is no need for a militia now, we have a national army/navy/Air Force.. Jmo in the latter statement
“If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.” ― Haruki Murakami
The whole amendment is completely debatable and really obscure and I'm definitely not smart enough to decipher, so it is what it is. I still say ban the handguns and automatics, otherwise, why can't I own a tank??? Isn't that might right to bear arms and/or to uphold a hobby???
This isn't rocket science man, you don't have to be smart to decipher it. It is simple and straight forward.
And for people saying ban just semi-autos, and handguns. LOL, if you let someone keep a shotgun and ban those then they would just modify the choke(not that most of you know what it is anyway) and would do more damage with no. 1 buckshot in small class rooms than any automatic rifle could do.
Some of you should really stick to other political issues, and because this is one you just do not know remotely enough about.
Btw, only the first part was directed at you Gomez
University of Alabama: The high mark of college football since 1892
The amendment is actually very vague. It's about right to bear arms as long as you're part of a citizen militia. So what does that mean? The NRA? A gun club? A hunting club? I'm really not sure to be honest with you. I think its intent is that you can arm yourself if the government (never gonna happen) tries to imprison or take action upon the people so that they're held back from free will.
That or be the regular folks with firearms that hold off the Muslim extremist sleeper cells when they attack us from within until the military/police get there. Assuming our president would send us backup, his record would state otherwise...
Absolutly correct. Can you imagine the damage a shotgun in a crowded school or theater would do? You guys who argue against guns for the public good just remember that one day someone is gonna target something you enjoy. Red meat, alcohol, fast powerful cars, they all kill and cripple more people than guns. I mean c'mon the speed limit is 70 why the hell do we have cars that go 150?
The amendment is not very vague. That point is absolutely not debatable to anyone without an agenda. This point is clearly black and white, there is no grey area.
Citizens of the states were called to form the state militia's, they weren't able to have them as long as they were members of a club,they had them because that right was given to them in the second amendment. The first time the US Army was used and not solely the State Militia's was the Civil War,and we still have that to protect our RIGHTS.
The bottom line is this, no matter what law is passed I know I personally would not give up ANY weapon of mine. When you are talking about tearing down rights it is life and death to some of us. To give the devil and inch is to give him a mile.
Again the purpose of a law isn't to completely stop a crime from occuring, that's just unreasonable. BTW how would they know to modify the choke if most people on here would know what a choke was? And if that would do more damage than an assault rifle why don't more people use modified shotguns in mass murders(Shotgun is 4th behind Handguns, Assault Rifles and revolvers)?
Before I even begin to answer your question, do you REALLY want me to tell you how it would be more deadly in a mass murder? Think about that before you answer.
you obviously do not know the definition of vague
Then PLEASE PLEASE, inform me oh enlightened one on how the amendment is vague. Anyone who knows a little of the early history of the US, or honestly those who can read in general know that is is anything but vague.
The point is that most people wouldn't think/know how to do that. And it is not like they couldn't do it now.
Just give me a valid practical use for hand guns, semis and extended clips that could not be accomplished with rifles or shotguns and we can let this go.
I wasn't asking about that i was saying it as more of a.... assuming you're right about it being more deadly, why are shotguns used so much less.... now that we're through that I'd love to see your response
Because it is my right to own and use them; It is simple as that. In the same line of thought I believe there is no valid reason for homosexuals to have any right to get married,yet there are people screaming the following: "Who are you to prevent them form doing something with their own lives, blah blah blah."
If I own a gun it absolutely affects no one else, my ownership of that gun does nothing to anyone. Now some crazy person plotting to kill an entire school of children having that gun does have a negative affect, however the gun did not do it, he did.
That is a personal decision for each killer, they are usually insane to begin with so i can't answer that.
Most people think that an assault rifle is the greatest thing ever if you have to kill someone, that is not true in all cases. Depending on what kind of enviornment you are in it can be used against someone. I think the whole thing about which one is more deadly and why one is used more than the other isn't necessarily important though. My point was that these weapons people propose ot not ban are still deadly and can be used for the same evil purpose. When you start banning one thing, then sooner or later everything will be banned. There is a slippery slope for firearms.
I am not disagreeing with you about the way the second amendment is interpreted today, that doesn't me the amendment isn't vague.
Vague- Of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning: "patients with vague symptoms".
As passed by the Congress: 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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: 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.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state- Is it stating that there must be a Militia and people have the right to bear arms? Or that if a militia is required, then people have the right to bear arms? If the free state is in no danger, is the militia necessary to its security? What id other states need security? Do you need to be in the militia to bear arms? What do they mean by bear arms? Just handguns? What about Machine Guns? Coach Gomez wants a tank!? What if we have a national army instead of a militia? What if you live in DC (not a state)?
While some of those questions are stupid, most of them are legit questions that you or me can't answer because we weren't at the constitutional convention. Again i am not disagreeing with peoples right to bear arms in this post, just saying that the amendment is written vaguely.
added a little humor at the end
Family Guy - The Right To Bear Arms
Look, if you're going to pretend to have any sort of knowledge about firearms (which you clearly do not), at least do so without making yourself look so foolish.
Sadly, once again, seems most 'gun control advocates' are not even mildly informed about firearms. Brain washed by the media.
Put it in terms they can understand.
If Jerry Sandusky likes men, and does so with consenting adults it is fine, right?
Now, if Uncle Jerry rapes little boys, it is not so fine.. See?
The state militias were not ever "In-service" until called upon by the states governor or president. These militia's were used by the US instead of an army up until the civil war. Now as we know, were were not at war all the time, and thus the militia's were not in-service,yet we still had the right.
Honestly, for those that are confused about the state militia part, I would advise them to read and/or take a course on early US constitutional history, or maybe early US military history. I can clarify for you. I just got out of a class that shed some light on the subject, that is why I do not find it vague.
That is all I have to say for right now. Will check later.
Name one practical use for handguns/assault rifles that cannot be accomplished with shotguns/rifles: Because it's my right to own them....
That's actually not an answer....
....... oh perfect i get it now!!!!
So I have to justify my right with a purpose? LOL. Give in man, you don't know enough of what you are talking about.
Mark it down in tBB history, this is the first time the liberals(And friends) have lost a debate and run out of bull crap to throw! I honestly did not believe I would see the day. +1's for all on this special occasion.
Edit: I don't even want to insult liberals with these people, instead of liberals I would refer to those ITT as anti-constitutionalists.
This post was edited by James Moriarty 16 months ago
Who the hell are you to tell someone what they need? If I want to own a semi-auto AR rifle, it should be protected by the 2nd amendment.
This. Give the govenment an "inch" in gun control and they will take a mile.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports