{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/21/2013 2:43:11 AM
12
LOL @ NRA
Look here gun owners, you should see the link first.
The second amendment didn't foresee the near possibility of people with handheld cannons and weapons that could fire at faster than the rate of an entire hundred-person army of musketmen. With that in play, I have something else here to say.
Weapons cause too may problems, and no, I'm not talking about your dandy little hunting rifles. No one thinks it's worth it to go after your stupid semi-automatic rifles, so you can stop being defensive.
The link above is just an example of the strangest solutions pro-gun citizens have been coming up with. Those solutions are the result of stubbornness, the refusal to come to any agreement on gun legislation due to denial, and once again, nobody is coming after your hunting rifles or pistols.
Gun owners...
Yer second amendment is a piece of crap. If you kept a musket in your closet, NOBODY is going to give a cowshit for legislation. You would be better off killing people with the bayonet on your musket than with the actual musket in a school.
However, if you bring around an assault rifle, loose it in the bathroom and your drug-addicted teenager gets home from a pissy cocaine trip and shoots up the family and half a school, I find it strange why you are baffled by and oppose gun-restriction legislation.
You need to identify our position before you be defensive and sit yourself in the little imaginary bubble.
-
2 RepliesI bet the op waits 15 minutes on the police while his possessions are stolen and his bumhole virginity is being taken.
-
2 RepliesI'm kinda tired of anti-gun folk using shootings as their only reasoning against guns.
-
4 RepliesEdited by HurtfulTurkey: 1/21/2013 7:19:05 AMThe wording of the Amendment makes it clear that the weaponry that citizens ought to have access to should be able to roughly parallel that used by the standing federal military or foreign force.
-
1 ReplyEdited by GHOST270: 1/21/2013 7:10:13 AMThe men who wrote the 2nd amendment did foresee the advances weapon technology might take in the future. The civilians who fought in the Revolutionary war were using, for the most part, their own weaponry, which was similar, and in some cases superior to the weaponry used by the British. [b]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.[/b] The [b]'militia'[/b] in that era, and in some respects the present, refers to all citizens whom are able to defend the country if need be.[b] 'Being necessary to the security of a free state' [/b] explicitly states just that; the ability for civilians to defend themselves and the country against threats. The colonists just fought a war against a tyrant government, so they knew a bit about such things. To avert such another oppressive government, through the constitution they gave citizens the power to do something about it should it , God forbid, get to such a point again. [b], the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/b] See video for TL;DR version. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XrNzE39J8E]Relevant[/url]
-
If the framers didn't foresee that firearm technology was going to advance, then they must have been blind. There were automatic weapons in the time that the Constitution was drafted and the Bill of Rights were added. They had to have known that weapons like that would become more common. Besides, automatic weapons are banned anyway. If you're talking "assault weapons" then they are the modern equivalent to the musket rifle in the time of the second amendment. The AR-15 the workhorse weapon of the United States just as the musket was. Used for sport, hunting, recreation, and defense just as the musket was. It's also pretty common in the US, just as the musket was back then.
-
2 RepliesEdited by OaklandPaintbalr: 1/21/2013 4:44:33 AM[quote][u]However, if you bring around an assault rifle,[/u] loose it in the bathroom and your drug-addicted teenager gets home from a pissy cocaine trip and shoots up the family and half a school, I find it strange why you are baffled by and oppose gun-restriction legislation.[/quote] Assault Rifles have been banned since 1986, you moron. [quote]No one thinks it's worth it to go after your stupid semi-automatic rifles, so you can stop being defensive.[/quote] Semi-automatic rifles are the only kind of rifles you're allowed to have, you idiot. Fully-automatic weapons, AKA assault rifles, have been banned since 1986. All the killings you've seen on TV were done with semi-automatic rifles. [u]Think[/u] before you say something stupid.
-
I thought the title was "LOL @ NBA" and I was expecting BlackHeaven to be in here tearing you a new one. Was disappoint.
-
Edited by Decimator Omega: 1/21/2013 6:56:09 AM........ He left the gun unattended? The -blam!-? He should be fired. Lastly, your OP is a piece of crap. You want the second amendment gone? Then maybe we should wreck the first as well and just strip this country apart and terror it down. Is that what you want? No rights? Remove one amendment that is crucial to keeping this country up at it's feet and the rest will slowly but surely fall with it. And if it's forgotten by the people but still there and it's useless, then within time all of them will be useless.
-
4 RepliesI agree that the 2nd amendment is out dated. But Americans should be able to bare pistols and shotguns at least. Rifles aren't needed.
-
It's dumbasses like you who don't know shit about guns thinking they do and then wanting to ban them. YOU CANNOT OWN AN ASSAULT RIFLE!!!! EVERY MASS SHOOTING HAS BEEN BY AN ORDINARY GUN, NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. NRA is just as dumb as most the Pro-Restriction people. Also the only drugs these mass shooters are on are legal anti-depressants and other drugs.
-
1 ReplyAs someone who owns no weapons and doesn't care about them, I would like to leave this response, the first amendment didn't foresee the near possibility of people communicating with large numbers of people across the world nearly instantaneously, does that give the government the right to ban the internet?
-
1 ReplyThe point of The right to bear arms is to defend yourself from tyranny and defend your rights if the need arises. You should be able to get powerful weapons to do this.
