DarkHyren : You make it sound like it's a very Conservative 14-year-old highschool freshman's fault Liberals have taken over and our country is falling apart. Trust me, my family certainly doesn't vote for these kinds of people. Like Hoochman said, our country's original principles have been dragged through the gutter in recent years, because people are idiots basically . I can't see the loss of the Second Amendment as any way to make things better. Illegal gun trade will GROW, and law-abiding people will be left defenseless. It's just not right.

As I said before, if the US government was smart and actually knew what it was doing then gun trafficking would shrink and you would actually be able to rely on the police force.
The proof is in the pudding, we did it and our country is better for it.
Honestly, these "principles" cant of been that great if they have been tarnished so easily, if it only took a few years to chuck them in the bin.

Now maybe, and I say maybe, it wouldnt work on a large scale as well, but with success like we have had you would have to be mad not to try a change of pace, if only to make the place safer.
And if things dont work out, the laws can just be reinstated.

In any case, if the US government needs gun wielding psychopaths (ie, it's citizens) to "keep it in check", if removing an antiquated law would send the US into anarchy, I think you have alot more to worry about then gun laws.

Its exactly why those old principles were so great that they got so tarnished. People grew too selfish to live by such good standards.

DarkHyren : Have you considered that, unlike Australia, America actually has boarders with other countries. It seems you've forgotten that gun running generally happens from a base outside the country to a base on the inside.

That's a problem an island(huge as it is) country wouldn't have to deal with on such a large scale.

Also... Most of what our founders indicated as rights are things that have to be rights. Speech, press, trial...

the 2nd admendment is in the bill of rights. if you take one away then u mine as well take all of them away. the 2nd admendment is ment for the citizens to be able to defend themselves as well as supply themselves. i cant think for a reson u should take that right away for any reson and besides u shouldnt mess with the constition. agree or dont this is just my opinion.

I liike shooting guns and stuff.Some people actually still rely on them for food.So i think it would be a bad idea to ban guns.

I believe mericans should have the right to posess firearms. Other than the irrisponsibility of some, I don't see a proble with it.

What I think is that guns should be banned, but only the big, useless ones. I mean, if you're going out hunting, you probably don't need more than a hunting rifle and a few traps. If you have anything more than that, then it should be illegal. I also think that civillians (probably spelt it wrong) should be able to carry a pistol with them, but nothing more. Basically, I'm saying people should only be allowed to have small guns that can defend them, but not something huge that could inflict severe damage and cause them to go crazy.

oyaman : In reallity I could kill more people with a small gun than with a big gun. It's easier to hide and faster to reload. I could kill 3 dozen people in less than about 20 seconds. Just saying.

I don't think you understand that the gun doesn't make the person dangerous..... the person makes the gun dangerous.

America no longer controls America. This super power only whants a small amount of people to work for THEM. So paying a bunch of people to get rid of our guns is a FANTASTIC idea, for them. We won't be able to fight back. And the supreme court isn't supposed to be able to take away our rights. I find theis very shocking indeed that they have already tried!

Baconator : Do you honestly think they would go through with something like this? I know it doesn't look it sometimes, but the people who lead this nation AREN'T absolute idiots for the most part. They know the consequences of such actions, and to be honest, the people who want guns would find a way to get them regardless. Doesn't matter if it's in the Constitution or not, if a true American wants to own a gun, he's going to stand up, and bear arms gosh darn it!

Sephitard9001 : Yes they would, and remember they have resources vast beyond comparison, as well as time. They may or may not be american, but they will be the death of us all!

The government can have my gun the 33 cal. object the comes from it

Seriously all of you think like that? Do you really think the government is going crazy with power and it is all the liberals fault. I DESPISE GUNS. If we didn't have guns there wouldn't be so much murder and crime. When a person can kill someone without putting themselves at risk is when murderers are born. Would you be able to walk up to someone and kill them if all you had was a knife or a sword? Being able to kill without any sense of danger makes it "fun" and nothing big.

Lagslayer :
scorpion347 :
bigNATE :
DarkHyren :
joebab :
tRIUNE :
gameface138 :
spectergaj :
Baconator :
Sephitard9001 :
icrazyforpokemon :
Bobbynibbles :

(Note: I summoned every person that has posted in this thread. Except for Hoochman, since he is banned. Crap, forgot Geeogree... next post.)

Um... before all the liberal-bashers go full swing (well, too late for that) it would be nice if you actually talked about what the vote was ACTUALLY about. The Supreme Court has never and WILL never vote on repealing the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution) are virtually untouchable without an overthrow of the entire thing.

The Second Amendment states that the Federal Government cannot take away the right to bear arms. This hearing was in relation to the NRA challenging a Chicago handgun law that has been in effect since 1982. The hearing specifically ruled on if Second Amendment right should be extended to laws made by state and local governments as other Amendments have via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (the Bill of Rights has always been a murky area there because they have always been limiters on the Federal government), the Supreme Court voted that it should and chucked the cases back to the local courts.

So this case was on the extension of Firearm Rights, not on repealing the Second Amendment. If you are going to make an inflammatory attack on the U.S. Government just because you have a problem with a Democrat in the Oval Office, at least go for one that cannot be rebutted by someone doing a simple Google search.

As for every person that posted a reply... how about you think for yourselves and actually research a claim before believing it to be true?

To back up my statements: New York Times Article. I suggest that all of you read it.

Now, would anyone like to have a discussion based on the facts?

all I posted was that guns are bad and deserved to be banned.

Bobbynibbles : Like I said, I summoned everyone. I felt you all had the right to read what the hearing was really about.

oh yeah... since I can now...

geeogree : sorry, forgot to summon in last post.

Elara : "If you are going to make an inflammatory attack on the U.S. Government just because you have a problem with a Democrat in the Oval Office, at least go for one that cannot be rebutted by someone doing a simple Google search."

a little hypocritical don't you think? Is this all that different than what went on between 2001-2008? Just saying. I have next to no vested interest in this debate since I'm not a citizen. Just felt to point that out.

The need for the 2nd amendment disappeared when the US Government ceased to abide by the regulations regarding the keeping of an Army.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress--
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

To my understanding the Government is aloud to keep a navy to defend our trade interests, and is aloud to raise and keep an army in times of need (limited to 2 years before reevaluation). Other than that the defense of the nation is suppose to be Militia authorized by part in the 2nd amendment. I do not believe the designers of our nation felt we should have an offense, unless their was a dire need. With the misappropriations of our offense, so declined the need for our appointed defense.

geeogree : I did my research then, too. I agree, the attacks went the other way when Bush was president (it seems the new thing to call the President a Nazi when they are not your party). Like I said before, I summoned everyone to read what the case was actually about.

Gospel : I believe the National Guard is the modern day militia. But yeah, there is a bit more to it than that. The British tried to prevent the colonists from having militias and arms, so the second amendment was included to ensure that should the people wish to rebel against the government (for a good reason, such as we had against Britain) that they could. To really understand the point of the amendments listed in the Bill of Rights you would have to read about the whole Federalist vs Antifederalist debates that went on.