So, many people know/have seen people literally wishing the second amendment be abolished. Some of you may have even seen protests against the second amendment (they're grouping with signs and wanting them to abolish the second amendment.) Now, the vast majority of the people wanting the second amendment to be abolished are leftists.

Please note: Leftists and Liberals are not the same thing. Liberals are for liberty, Leftists are for Tyranny. They're different.

Now, the question is, do you, my fellow Americans, support the second amendment? Do you support your right to have guns in case of a government gone Tyrannical? 

Personally, the second amendment is a god-sent gift to Americans. America has the undeniable right to defend themselves against oppression and tyranny coming to its lands. It should not be infringed upon. 

First off, 'Murica! 

But seriously, the amendments were made as basic fundamental rights as the founding fathers saw it. The second is a HUGE topic for debate, as there are many who think that guns are intrinsically bad, and there's the other side that say we should have guns, because we have a right. (Obviously, there's a gray zone, and people scattered everywhere between, but those are the extremes.) 

I am somewhere in the middle, I use guns, because we are allowed, guns are neither good nor bad, as no object can be intrinsically bad. (At least not that I know of.) I own one. (When I turn 21 I'll get myself a pistol, as many States don't allow semis or pistols before 21.) The big thing for me, is that they are a fun tool. You can use it for target shooting, self-defense, or hunting. Possibly more, but that is neither here nor there. I like guns, use guns, but won't die if they are taken, not that they should, since it's best to prevent than to respond. 

Big arguments against it is that a large number of suicides are committed with them, but the truth is that they'd find a way, since they've made up their mind about it. Others could include, that guns are bad, because people use them for crimes, or just have a general diversion to them, pretty unexplained to me. (Maybe just the way they see it as a problem because of news and/or movies.) These people, don't really get the use for them, and that is just my opinion, but a logical one, as I see it. If we have no guns, criminals will, they just get it the way they've always gotten them. The process of getting a gun, has a screening process, that if you ask me, has enough to filter maybe too many people. 

That's a long answer, to say, yes. We should have them.

Owning pistols is reasonable, but not owning fully automatic guns. There is no reason to have a rifle for self defense. Thinking that everyone should be able to own fully automatic rifles filled with bullets is lunacy. Owning a gun isn't "fun" and isn't a joke. Tools that can be used to easily take many people's lives should be taken seriously. We have a military for warding off foreign threats. We have police and other organizations for terrorist threats. If you want to shoot go to a shooting range. Guns should only be used by civilians for self defense. A pistol can get the job done just as well as a rifle would.
We need to have stricter gun control laws. We need to make it impossible for anyone to legally get a gun without some sort of reasonable background check. We need it to be illegal for people to have rifles, or harder to get them. Yes, criminals will still be able to get guns, but they'll be forced to steal them which could get them caught. I rarely hear the suicide argument, but when I do its by right wings who are trying to find an easy way to prove they're right.

earthwarrior : Call me picky. Are you referring to 'rifles' as any longbore firearm or the automatic kind. There are rifles that have a bolt action, which means you can put one round (or bullet) in at a time, fire that bullet, then eject the casing and manually put another round in only after the first is gone. It's a slower rate of fire compared to an automatic weapon.

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Second, a big chunk of the original amendment was to arm the civilians against the military in case the military simply quells any kind of civil disobedience. We have police and other organizations that have shot and killed Americans since they were first armed. Do those folks deserve it? That's another debate. The one here is: Is an unarmed population more or less safe from their government?

never been in this topic, 2nd ammendment or however you say it, looks like its interesting

Ghostbare1111: I was referring to specifically these, but I'm also against most weapons other than handguns. Including weapons that are bolt action, semi, or auto.
I'm not saying our population should be unarmed, I'm saying what we can be armed with should be regulated. If our population needs to defend ourselves from the government/military, I don't believe that we would be able to both get enough people on board and fight them off. We don't even have enough people willing to demand more honest politicians, how would we stand a chance against them?
Depending where you live, shooting a cop can end up in you being arrested and charged with a crime. I think there are times when it is necessary, but I don't see how you'd need certain weapons to do it.

earthwarrior : I'm gonna have to nitpick a little , too. : /

When you say "fully automatic rifle", what is currently legally defined as an automatic weapon is already VERY heavily restricted and, to acquire one, you have to get a very hard-to-get federal firearms license, which involves paying a lot of money, waiting a long time and filling out a whole bunch of really invasive paperwork. After that, you still have to have the, what.... $1,500-$3,000 for purchasing the actual gun? Then all transfers have to be through a licensed dealer and everything is logged. Once you have it, the BATFE (Banning Any Thing Fun or Enjoyable. Alternately, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) can come to your house, any day, any time of the day, and demand to see the gun in question. And it's equally difficult to get rid of it... What you likely mean to say is semi-automatic rifle.

And even then, that's a rather broad term. For example, we could be talking about the common Wal-Mart Bushmaster with a 30 round mag or we could we talking about a semi-automatic .30-06 with a capacity of only 5 rounds. What about the iconic M1 Garand with it's 8 round clip? Despite a low capacity, relatively powerful cartridge with considerable recoil, overall length of 43.5 inches WITHOUT bayonet and a minimum weight of a whopping 9.5 pounds, making it totally unsuitable for employment in any crime in close quarters, it would be regulated under a law that bans semi-automatic rifles. Even if we did away with rifles entirely, what about shotguns?

A shotgun, because of it's large, smooth bore and easy-to-reload, plastic shells, can be effective in just about any role at any practical distance, including use as a rifle because of widely available monolithic projectiles, and they also come in semi-automatic varieties. Ban primers, powder and slugs? That's OK, with some work, primers can be reused with crushed match heads, powder can be made with a simple 321 mixture of common items and slugs, or at least, musket balls, can be cast in homemade molds with melted tire weights. Don't have all that? Use some melted crayons or hot glue as a binder for regular birdshot loads and turn them into something that makes a really nasty cavity on impact. What about banning shotguns?

It's a proven fact that shotgun shells are loaded to such low pressures they may be fired from as little as a metal pipe from any hardware store with an inner diameter of .75 inches and a nail. That's right, a pipe-gun.

Putting aside the paramilitary survival tactics, handguns are far more effective than rifle just because of the fact that they're concealable, light, sufficiently powerful and almost always relatively high-capacity. In any situation this side of a battlefield, a handgun is far more dangerous than any rifle.


With all of that said, I support firearms ownership regardless of the US constitution. I've come to the realization that a simple document hardly guarantees any right to the individual. You only have as many rights as you're willing to protect and no one can do that for you.


EDIT: You replied to him while I was typing that. My bad.

m0ssb3rg935 : Whats stopping someone from modifying their semi auto into a full auto?
I don't think I know enough about some of the things that you mentioned so I'm not going to comment on it. I've been focused on other topics, like healthcare, so I haven't been able to spend much time on this one.

earthwarrior : Healthcare is probably a more important issue, anyway. I didn't intend to overload my post and I just kinduh went into rant mode, and I apologize for that. My original point was basically that attempting to regulate a specific class of firearm can, and most likely will yield many unintended consequences. It would be sort of regulating a broad class of computer hardware, making it basically unenforceable and counter productive. I've always been much more in favor of education than legislation because it's one thing to teach that something is illegal, which basically just sends the message "don't get caught", and something else entirely to teach why something is wrong.

I am in support of expanded background checks, though. I think a background check should include medical history to some extent. Like whether or not someone has seen a psychologist or a marriage counselor,, are currently on any kinds of medication like antipsychotics, antidepressants or that sort of thing. I also think that, with an expanded background check, there should be expiration dates on certain criminal charges. If jolly old grandpa' Arnold wasn't so jolly in his youth and was convicted of aggravated felony assault 50 years ago and has a spotless record since, I think that could be scratched off.

I do have to disagree with you on the subject of fending off a military coup, though. The general American public may have no combat training or experience, military grade equipment, fighter jets, tanks or anything like that, but even though we're disorganized, enough of us are well versed in basic firearms operation that we can instruct people. Not to mention the veterans that are already among the population and the fact that we have a 100% volunteer military, most of which signed up with the intend to protect their family, their land and their people and not their government. The military would divide among the factions.

And on the subject of converting semi-automatic weapons to full-auto, I don't know much about that, myself. I'm afraid to google it.... Though, since you're making modifications to the mechanism, I'd imagine that it would take some knowledge and maybe experience in gunsmithing.

Yes, I think we should have them.

First, I dislike the idea of banning stuff on principle. I believe that a large majority of gun owners are decent people who respect their weapon and what it is capable of doing if used irresponsibly. A universal ban on guns , or anything else for that matter, in response to a relatively small number of abuses basically says to me that the people in charge of the ban either (a) think that everyone around them is untrustworthy or (b) are lazy and just looking for the quickest and easiest out that they can find.

Second, I don't think it would make much of a difference in crime. If someone wants to kill or hurt someone, they will find a way. They can get a gun illegally, or use another weapon. Keeping them legal will at least level the playing field, and give the victims a chance to protect themselves.

I do agree that controls are a good thing. I think a good model would be how we deal with car ownership. Like guns, cars can be deadly, and we have a system in place that makes you prove that you know how to use it and can take it away from you if you don't use it responsibly.

earthwarrior : Modifying weapons is a difficult process, and you'd most likely have to get parts illegally. I have military "training" with firearms, and have handled fully automatic weapons, there's no real purpose to having them, since they are much less effective than regular weapons. (It's just a waste of ammo and money.) 

Rifles... Bolt-Actions are just awesome! They are very low in the rate of fire, about the lowest possible other than single actions. They usually don't have a large capacity, and are in virtually every caliber. (.30 .22 .308 etc.) They are very hard to modify, and are usually just at 5-10 round capacities. Better for longer rage shots, are one of the most preferred hunting rifles. And, my personal favorite weapon, as they are more accurate than semis. 

Also, m0ssb3rg is right. The possibility of getting fully automatic weapons is VERY hard, and pretty much pointless. I'd never go through the process of getting autos personally, as it's just to much of a pain. And, while pistols are far better for self-defense, they have a low capacity. About 6-10 rounds, unless you get an extended mag, which makes the pistol stand out a LOT! 

I like how one of the tags is adults only yet half of you aren't even 21

top lel m8

Well, 21 or not, I'm legally an adult, legally able to purchase a firearm, and legally required to submit to either side of a judicial case involving a firearm. Thus, I should at least have an opinion regarding the handling of a lethal device in my vicinity. 
As such, I believe that the second amendment should remain, but as already stated, with restrictions.
It has been said (in this thread) that obtaining heavy weapons is very difficult and modifying is often illegal. Coincidentally, I think that heavy weapons and modifications should be illegal. So one may argue that there's no point in including them in the second amendment, right?
The problem comes in once the courts get a hold of a case. If a heavy weapon was used in self-defense but, by nature of the firearm, caused much more personal or collateral damage than was necessary, should the second amendment cover that?
I tend to wonder why people really need such heavy guns (not necessarily automatic, but you get the idea) in the first place. I know that people could take hours trying to explain it to me, but I just can't quite understand it.  And when the possession of such weapons becomes a problem, I have to wonder "is it worth it?"

Or maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about, because hey, I'm not even 21 yet.

Of course we need the Second Amendment. I've never heard of anyone protesting the amendment itself and I think it would be ridiculous is anyone did. Depending on what kind of place you live in, owning a gun could be a necessity. Even if you don't live in a criminally active town or city, I think people should own a gun just in case of an emergency.

That being said, I support gun control and putting restrictions on the amendment. I think various psychological and background checks need to be done in order to prevent criminals or mentally insane people from owning a gun. I also think that people will really only need a handgun or hunting rifle/shotgun at most for self defense. As it happens, this is all pretty much already the case. I think that the Second Amendment should be upheld and the restrictions we currently have should not be lessened and maybe only increased a little at most.

yoshirulez! : You do realize that you don't have to be 21 to purchase a weapon, right? I purchased my first rifle at 18/19. You can do a lot before you are a fully legal adult. (By that, I mean 21.)  Also, you didn't really add anything and your posts seems a little off the wall... since it's really a moot point. 

Hidden Phantom : Most people don't really go for the Heavy Weapons, as they are just kind of weird. They are heavy, have a HUGE kick and are just kind of awkward. Highest practical caliber would have to be the .30 or .45. Since either of them are high, but not too much kick. A .50 cal is just ridiculous, since there won't be anything you'd need to hunt for it. (There wouldn't be much of anything left after you hit it.)

darthyoda : Don't argue your point to me, argue it to the person who added the "Adults Only" tag.

I was just pointing out how silly it was. I'm not interested in a debate.

m0ssb3rg935 : Yeah no problem. I just wasn't expecting so much to be thrown at me right away. Ideally, if a law causes another set of problems then the law would be modified or additional laws would be made swiftly. Too bad thats not how it works.
I'm glad we can agree on background checks. I think your example would have to depend on the crime he committed. 
I'm still not sure how well a civil war would go for the civilian side. Look at whats happening in Russia and North Korea. The government could hypothetically silence those who speak out.
I didn't want to google that either... Knowing that I could possibly get flagged creeps me out.

As a Swede I never understood the argument that citizens should be allowed to carry guns to "protect themselves against a corrupt government". Even if you entertain this idea which to me personally seems like nothing but baseless paranoia (a country like the US does not simply become a totalitarian dictatorship when it has a long tradition of democracy and the term freedom is pretty much ingrained into people's minds) it still begs the question how your average American is going to be able to do much of anything against trained troops who have access to all the resources of the US military. Maybe some specific cases of armed gun nuts might be able to put up some sort of fight but those would seem like far more of a risk to society than the risk of the military becoming corrupt. On a side note I also find it ironic that many who argue using this basis are also for high military expenditure (not saying everyone but many of the people I've discussed this with are). It just seems like a grasping at straws kind of argument.

Now looking past that point I don't see any other reason for why it is justified. Just because it's in the bill of rights that does not make it an unquestionable fact, those who wrote it were still people that were a product of their time (and it made more sense to carry guns in those days considering you did not have the same kind of law enforcement you have today). Gun ownership is not a right as it poses a risk to everyone including those who choose to not own one. More widespread access to guns end up killing far more people than they save in general. Just compare the gun homicide rates of countries with liberal gun laws to those that are more restricted (US compared to UK for example). Even Switzerland which arguably has the lowest gun homicide rate of any country that allows public ownership of guns, still has a comparably high rate to other European countries and that is despite military training being mandatory and there being no concealed carry meaning people there are on average much more fit to own a gun.

Guns aren't a viable solution to increased crime as they create more problems than they solve, often times they contribute to these crimes. Statistics show that the guns criminals use, in the vast majority of cases originally came from a store which legally sells them. While I would agree that banning all guns in the US would not be a good idea, I say that more out of the unique circumstances the country is in (with such widespread gun ownership and how there's a very large existing market it probably wouldn't be effective). What can be done is limiting the kind of guns that people are allowed to own to not include automatic or semi automatic rifles and other more "potent" weapons. In addition, increasing the restrictions on who is allowed to own a gun, requiring stricter background checks, renew license more often and potentially reversing concealed carry. All of which is the case in Switzerland that many proponents use as an example.