America is looking at removing the 2nd amednment.

[kajiko]

Its only because of the conneticut shooting, which is bullshit.
First of all why blame it on ****ing guns? It was all the mom's fault. she knew that kid was mentaly disabled, so why the **** did she not only have guns in the house, but teach her kid how to ****ing use them? If that kid didn't kill her, she should have went to prison.
Second of all, we have the rights to bear arms. We have had this right ever since we have become a country. WE ARE AMERICA. Not ****ing China, Russia, or Japan. They have no right to take our rights from us.

They've taken our right to vote for a non-shitty presidant, why take this right too?

 

[Robot Boy]

Guess what the 2nd Amendment is?

An amendment, meaning it was not in the original constitution.

Stop lying yes it was ->Article [II]

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.

 

[Germanicus]

Stop lying yes it was ->Article [II]

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.

The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. The first Ten Amendments were created in order to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. However, Article two is the part of the Constitution which allows the Federal Government to appoint an Executive Branch. (the president and his staff.) The Second Amendment and Article Two are different things.

Also, so people can remember; Amendments can be added and repealed. This is allowed. Remember that little thing called Prohibition? Both the establishment and removal of Prohibition were different amendments in the Constitution.

 

[narajacob]

Times change. Living in the past and clinging to outdated amendments is foolish. Stricter regulations on gun control or a complete banning will result in an increase in black market trade of guns but not in equilibrium.
What worked in the past, worked in the past. Try something new in the present and who know, it may very well work in the present.

 

[Pervy Wrath]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people....with guns. But in all seriousness, guns should be banned in America. The police don't even carry guns in my country, and we have a very low homicide rate. But people will still find a way to harm others without guns

 

[Robot Boy]

The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. The first Ten Amendments were created in order to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. However, Article two is the part of the Constitution which allows the Federal Government to appoint an Executive Branch. (the president and his staff.) The Second Amendment and Article Two are different things.

Also, so people can remember; Amendments can be added and repealed. This is allowed. Remember that little thing called Prohibition? Both the establishment and removal of Prohibition were different amendments in the Constitution.

That's the preamble wrong section I'm looking at the ammendments to the constitution section

 

[tacobelt]

if they cant be taken out they should atleast increase the price of guns/bullets by a crazy amount like christ rock said years ago, may have been a joke at the time but if it works ...hey...

i mean its crazy....... when this amendment was made it made sense, we were some small country with no military, indians to the west & enemy across the ocean, wild life was actually a useful food source. but now...

 

[jdorm]

please explain how a good willing person will go and buy a gun?

why do we need weapons that can fire a lot a rounds for self defense or sport?

we can't stop bad people from getting guns but can we just make it hard.

please don't take this and turn it into politics cause thats why we all are screwed, republicans or democrats that is trash once they get elected they should call them self united states citizens representative and take care of voters real needs.
the national riffle association pays good money for this amendment to stay as it is cause they are making money they don't care about your security or well being

my condolences for any person that lost a family member and ill try to do my best to keep guns out of reach thru my vote and yes that is the real defense we have now against bad goverments THE VOTE not guns

 

[jdorm]

I mentioned somewhere in another thread that even if you ban guns the criminals will find the second dangerous weapon and if you ban that they find the third dangerous weapon and you ban and so on and so forth. When it gets to a point where they are left with they're hands they can still kill people with their hands such as strangulation or snapping someones neck or some other form of execution that doesn't involve a weapon it won't stop unless you protect yourself or get some form of protection(police or military). Just saying you won't be able to ban hands when the hands are the most deadliest of all weapons...pointless...the government can't control everything nor is it they're place to do so.

P.S. I would prefer defending myself and as soon as law enforcement arrives I'll let them handle it.

i don't think they can kill 27 people that fast without somebody stopping them..........

 

[narajacob]

Think of it like this: The families of gun shot victims aren't solely blaming the gun or the person but they are blaming the ease at which the shooter got a gun and that, thanks to the 2nd amendment, he was allowed.

 

[Robot Boy]

i don't think they can kill 27 people that fast without somebody stopping them..........

(sighs) It's not about how fast you kill someone its the fact that they are being killed without having the means to protect themselves if the ban passes.
@narajacob - don't blame the ammendment blame lanza's parents for their negligence any sensible parent would teach they're kid the do's and dont's of guns.

 

[narajacob]

@Demon Fang - Yeah their negligence is responsible for how he got the gun and his mothers negligence got her shot. Foolish.

 

[markdabomb22]

Regardless of all of the mass killings that happen, guns still save more lives then any other weapon....if there's a will there is a way if someone is dead set on killing a mass amount of people regardless of what they use they will figure out way to do so. to remove guns for the most part would only disable the sane from defending themselves. most people don't know how and won't want to illegally obtain guns....as for criminals we would be making there jobs easier.

 

[Unbiased]

Most of you are just outright wrong. The second amendment was written so that someone could defend themselves when being attacked because unlike now, it could happen at any time. Back when this amendment was written, the English were attacking, as well as Indians who wanted their land back. Currently there is no reason for guns at all. Frankly no country in the world would attack the USA as a group. Now easy access to guns is just a way for gangs, and mass murders. I understand that hunters use guns which is why I believe the best solution to this problem is to only have this easy access to smaller more controlled guns, which are much less effective for killing people. If someone did try they wouldn't be able to kill 27. Right now we could use many more regulations for controlling who has access to guns.

The second amendment wasn't implemented for the reason of defending against invasion. It was to defend against those who would take your rights away. The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it won't be needed until people try to take it away.

 

[HiraishinFTG]

Are they just trying to ban high grade assault rifles? That's not taking away the 2nd amendment. People could still use hunting guns for fun..... can someone tell me the problem here. I find it particularly telling Congress' 1st statement, paraphrased "Let's face it, the military is so advanced and powerful at this point, civilian revolution is out of the question". Guys the military with air power would f*** us all if we tried any revolution (not that we should!)

 

[Unbiased]

Are they just trying to ban high grade assault rifles? That's not taking away the 2nd amendment. People could still use hunting guns for fun..... can someone tell me the problem here. I find it particularly telling Congress' 1st statement, paraphrased "Let's face it, the military is so advanced and powerful at this point, civilian revolution is out of the question". Guys the military with air power would f*** us all if we tried any revolution (not that we should!)

The removal of assault rifles is infringing the 2nd amendment. If there's to be a civil war the militia requires assault rifles to if need be to destroy the U.S military. Also for your information 88 in 100 Americans own a fire arm. That's 330 million Americans with a gun vs the US army with combined forces of reserves and active duty is 5 million. 330 million vs 5 million yeah they're gonna have to call back the soldiers from afganistan, "contractors" from Iraq, hire mercenaries, call back soldiers from Japan, vietnam, korea, libya in order to fight back against 330 million pissed off Americans.

 

[Ryuga Uchiha]

Ok, then.

 

[HiraishinFTG]

The removal of assault rifles is infringing the 2nd amendment. If there's to be a civil war the militia requires assault rifles to if need be to destroy the U.S military. Also for your information 88 in 100 Americans own a fire arm. That's 330 million Americans with a gun vs the US army with combined forces of reserves and active duty is 5 million. 330 million vs 5 million yeah they're gonna have to call back the soldiers from afganistan, "contractors" from Iraq, hire mercenaries, call back soldiers from Japan, vietnam, korea, libya in order to fight back against 330 million pissed off Americans.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but tons of disorganized Americans even w/ assault rifles could not defeat the ORGANIZED US military with it's bombs, missiles, jets, etc. However, we can rest assured that it should never come to this, and if it did, I'd probably just move to Canada or something, lol. I trust that people born and raised in a free country would not to have the nerve or inclination to take our freedoms away.

As for the black market argument, I think a lot of these psychotic people don't have the cash to afford black market assault rifle prices. At LEAST reform the gun licensing system. I can see both sides of this debate though....

 

[narajacob]

@Unbiased - The 5 million soldiers, trained to defend America are for obvious reasons, more capable then the 330 million civilians, probably containing a couple million trained gunsmen. That doesn't even factor in the limitation on guns and ammo that the civilians are going to face.

 

[Unbiased]

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but tons of disorganized Americans even w/ assault rifles could not defeat the ORGANIZED US military with it's bombs, missiles, jets, etc. However, we can rest assured that it should never come to this, and if it did, I'd probably just move to Canada or something, lol. I trust that people born and raised in a free country would not to have the nerve or inclination to take our freedoms away.

As for the black market argument, I think a lot of these psychotic people don't have the cash to afford black market assault rifle prices. At LEAST reform the gun licensing system. I can see both sides of this debate though....

If you think the U.S. military is gonna attack the citizens they'd be out of their mind. They're not willing to kill their family members cause they got the order. I know a lot of military members who wouldn't go out and fight against the citizens let alone their family. They swear an oath to protect the constitution and the people not the government.