Anti 2nd Amendment People - Why are you anti?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Ownership of Lethal Weapons should not be a Right. There's no reason for such a thing in this day and age and it just ferments a culture of violence.

:confused:
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: zinfamous
How many absolutist 2nd amendmenters support the Patriot Act?

Name the specific parts of the Patriot Act which you think infringes on your civil liberties.

5th Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
Paraphrasing, this means that you can not be imprisoned, executed, or fined without the "due process of law."

Due process is not specifically defined in the constitution, but has been universally accepted as meaning "a jury of one's peers, innocence until proven guilty, etc." This is an interpretation which has never really come under question...yet several articles in the PA have set a first-ever precedent in redefining these terms:

Section 213 eliminates the prior requirement that law enforcement provide a person subject to a search warrant with contemporaneous notice of the search. The new "secret search" provision applies where the court "finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse effect." Although the Administration's "Field Guidance on New Authorities Enacted in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation" states that the new authority "is primarily designed to authorize delayed notice of searches," the amendment permits seizure of any tangible property or communications where the court finds "reasonable necessity" for this seizure. The law requires that notice be given within a "reasonable period," which can be extended by the court for "good cause." "Reasonable period" is undefined, and the Administration's Field Guidance advises that this is a "flexible standard."

Under prior law, law enforcement could use a subpoena to obtain "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service or a subscriber to or customer of such service and the type of services the subscriber or customer utilized" from an internet service provider. Section 210 expands the type of information that a provider must disclose to law enforcement to include, among other things, records of session times and duration; any temporarily assigned network address; and any means or source of payment. This heightened authority to use subpoenas (rather than court orders) for a broader (and more revealing) class of information is not be limited to investigations of suspected terrorist activity.

Section 206 expands FISA to permit "roving wiretap" authority, which allows the interception of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular telephone line, computer or other facility to be monitored. Prior law required third parties (such as common carriers and others) "specified in court-ordered surveillance" to provide assistance necessary to accomplish the surveillance. The amendment extends that obligation to unnamed and unspecified third parties.

Such "generic" orders could have a significant impact on the privacy rights of large numbers of innocent users, particularly those who access the Internet through public facilities such as libraries, university computer labs and cybercafes. Upon the suspicion that an intelligence target might use such a facility, the FBI can now monitor all communications transmitted at the facility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the recipient of the assistance order (for instance, a library) would be prohibited from disclosing the fact that monitoring is occurring.

The "generic" roving wiretap orders raise significant constitutional issues, as they do not comport with the Fourth Amendment's requirement that any search warrant "particularly describe the place to be searched." That deficiency becomes even more significant where the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally.

http://epic.org/privacy/terror...sapatriot/default.html

Here are only a few articles withing the PA that infringe on only 2 Amendments regarding rights of privacy and due process for American citizens; not only foreigners suspected of terrorism.

 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that

lol, none?
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that

You mixed your tenses, therefore your hypothesis cannot stand.
 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that

Imagine you were never born because your mother and father were shot to death by a bunch of law abiding citizens, so you never made this stupid fucking post. Do you know by how much everyone's IQ would go up? answer that.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that

hard to say, but it's not really worth considering. We can't rewrite the past, and like I said earlier, we can't simply "zap" guns out of existence.

If you want me to bite, I'd say there's an equal chance of there being more crime as there is less crime as there is the same amount of crime compared to today's reality. There's something to be said about the notion that the person you may want to rob might be packing.
 

imported_Imp

Diamond Member
Dec 20, 2005
9,148
0
0
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that

Imagine you were never born because your mother and father were shot to death by a bunch of law abiding citizens, so you never made this stupid fucking post. Do you know by how much everyone's IQ would go up? answer that.

Holy overreaction Batman.
 

ChAoTiCpInOy

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2006
6,442
1
81
The 2nd amendment was designed so that people could protect themselves from the British. Seeing as there is no British to attack us, we don't need to have that right. We have plenty of policemen and women that are out there to protect us. The sooner we get guns off the street the sooner we'll be much safer.
 

adairusmc

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,095
78
91
Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
The 2nd amendment was designed so that people could protect themselves from the British. Seeing as there is no British to attack us, we don't need to have that right. We have plenty of policemen and women that are out there to protect us. The sooner we get guns off the street the sooner we'll be much safer.

:laugh:
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,174
28,826
136
Did anyone else notice that the OP has made only one reply in this thread, right at the beginning? Might a be, could a be, a troll?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: zinfamous
How many absolutist 2nd amendmenters support the Patriot Act?

Name the specific parts of the Patriot Act which you think infringes on your civil liberties.

5th Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
Paraphrasing, this means that you can not be imprisoned, executed, or fined without the "due process of law."

Due process is not specifically defined in the constitution, but has been universally accepted as meaning "a jury of one's peers, innocence until proven guilty, etc." This is an interpretation which has never really come under question...yet several articles in the PA have set a first-ever precedent in redefining these terms:

Section 213 eliminates the prior requirement that law enforcement provide a person subject to a search warrant with contemporaneous notice of the search. The new "secret search" provision applies where the court "finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse effect." Although the Administration's "Field Guidance on New Authorities Enacted in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation" states that the new authority "is primarily designed to authorize delayed notice of searches," the amendment permits seizure of any tangible property or communications where the court finds "reasonable necessity" for this seizure. The law requires that notice be given within a "reasonable period," which can be extended by the court for "good cause." "Reasonable period" is undefined, and the Administration's Field Guidance advises that this is a "flexible standard."

Under prior law, law enforcement could use a subpoena to obtain "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service or a subscriber to or customer of such service and the type of services the subscriber or customer utilized" from an internet service provider. Section 210 expands the type of information that a provider must disclose to law enforcement to include, among other things, records of session times and duration; any temporarily assigned network address; and any means or source of payment. This heightened authority to use subpoenas (rather than court orders) for a broader (and more revealing) class of information is not be limited to investigations of suspected terrorist activity.

Section 206 expands FISA to permit "roving wiretap" authority, which allows the interception of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular telephone line, computer or other facility to be monitored. Prior law required third parties (such as common carriers and others) "specified in court-ordered surveillance" to provide assistance necessary to accomplish the surveillance. The amendment extends that obligation to unnamed and unspecified third parties.

Such "generic" orders could have a significant impact on the privacy rights of large numbers of innocent users, particularly those who access the Internet through public facilities such as libraries, university computer labs and cybercafes. Upon the suspicion that an intelligence target might use such a facility, the FBI can now monitor all communications transmitted at the facility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the recipient of the assistance order (for instance, a library) would be prohibited from disclosing the fact that monitoring is occurring.

The "generic" roving wiretap orders raise significant constitutional issues, as they do not comport with the Fourth Amendment's requirement that any search warrant "particularly describe the place to be searched." That deficiency becomes even more significant where the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally.

http://epic.org/privacy/terror...sapatriot/default.html

Here are only a few articles withing the PA that infringe on only 2 Amendments regarding rights of privacy and due process for American citizens; not only foreigners suspected of terrorism.

How exactly does that infringe on your civil liberties?
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,697
29
91
Originally posted by: ironwing
Did anyone else notice that the OP has made only one reply in this thread, right at the beginning? Might a be, could a be, a troll?

not a troll, just would like to see others views, plain and simple. i have read every post in this thread and appreciate those that have contributed to it regardless of what they have said.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
A shotgun has already saved my life once. At least in my personal experience, anti 2nd amendment folks sounds callous and ignorant no matter what they say.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
If the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary, then come and take my guns from me. But remember, you can't use guns to take away my guns, because you believe guns are bad. :D
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: bob4432
obviously, as you can see from my sig i am pro 2nd amendment. i have been shooting since i was ~8 or so and grew up around guns although i lived in the city. we would go shooting often. it was always a fun time as was playing soccer when i was a child. to me it was always normal to have a gun in a house. and unfortunately yes, i have been on the wrong end of a paranoid person with a gun as he placed it against my head and threatened to kill me, something i will never forget, but it taught me a lot and talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that situation never made me think of becoming anti 2a.

i have really never heard a real reason for people to be anti, other than "i just am" and they usually get defensive. so, could you educate me and explain why people are so anti gun?

anybody in this conversation, please respect others as they are allowed their opinions, so please, no name calling or anything like that. respect each other please, i would really like to know this info.

fwiw, if it matters i am an independent and hold both typical democratic and republican views.

again, please keep this informative and respectable so it doesn't get shut down.

thanks in advance for your time and information,
bob

I'm not anti-2nd but I do have a problem with people such as the ones at my second job where I do IT consulting. They have pictures posted in the break room of them posing with various guns and trying to look bad ass.

Retards have no business owning guns.

Everyone should have the freedom to own guns. Some people should not be allowed to have guns. We should have some standards on who can and cannot own guns that prevents people who fall into the extreme (criminal records, history of violence, mental deficiencies, etc) ends of the spectrum from legally owning them. However, in the end, no one can really say for certain outside those extremes who should and should not be allowed to have guns so anyone who does not fall in the extreme should be allowed to own them.
 

RadiclDreamer

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2004
8,622
40
91
I'm anti assault rifle, High powered rifle and any other gun designed to kill people. If you want something for home defense then get a shotgun, you'd be surprised how effective a click-click of a shotgun round being chambered can be. If that doesnt work, you are unlikely to miss. Im not anti weapon, just weapons designed to kill people.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: MercenaryYoureFired
I don't necessarily like the 2nd Amendment because I feel it doesn't belong with our current culture. As time passes the need for change arises, especially concerning something like this. The availability of firearms today in the US is pretty absurd; and I highly doubt the very smart people who wrote the Amendments were expecting the firearm industry to be where it's at today.

I also hate the fact that if you're in possession of a gun it gives you absolute power over everyone without one. This isn't a bad thing until you realize the ease of getting one, moreover thinking about some of the people who have/had access to this kind of power is disturbing, and why it's such a big problem here.

Believe it or not, but a higher percentage of Americans owned guns when the Constitution was written.

That higher percentage also depended near-exclusively on hunting to provide meat to their family.

I'm not anti-hunting, as it is an effective, and necessary environmental control. I think it's great that people still hunt for their own food. However, it certainly isn't necessary today.

those percentages are irrelevant, you see, when you misapply them.

No those percentages are valid because it proves that you are you type do not want to tackle the real issue with guns. It's not the guns that are the problem. If they were, then there would have been mass murders and children being killed by firearms more often then than now. The issue is one you fail to see. The issue is parenting. Plain and simple. Many parents don't want to be burdened with teaching their children anymore. Look at the demographic of gun deaths and you'll see that a disproportional # of them are black or latino. And shockingly, they are gang related. Because the family structure in those communities has collapsed. And sadly if you spent your time energy and money on not fighting guns, but in helping the very young that have a chance of learning and getting out of the rut that holds so many minorities back, that would have a bigger impact than banning guns.

Show the kids they have an opportunity at a better life if they just apply themselves. If they stay in school, stay off drugs, stay out of gangs. Invest in our future not waste time now.

 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
I'm anti assault rifle, High powered rifle and any other gun designed to kill people. If you want something for home defense then get a shotgun, you'd be surprised how effective a click-click of a shotgun round being chambered can be. If that doesnt work, you are unlikely to miss. Im not anti weapon, just weapons designed to kill people.

I nominate this as most idiotic post of the thread. Mind boggling.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: sandorski
Ownership of Lethal Weapons should not be a Right. There's no reason for such a thing in this day and age and it just ferments a culture of violence.

They said that in Germany and Russia in the 1930's

how is that relevant in 2008?

Go re-read your history books. There was a mass culling of people back then.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
I'm anti assault rifle, High powered rifle and any other gun designed to kill people. If you want something for home defense then get a shotgun, you'd be surprised how effective a click-click of a shotgun round being chambered can be. If that doesnt work, you are unlikely to miss. Im not anti weapon, just weapons designed to kill people.

You do realize that a shotgun can kill people easily, right? And a 30-30 deer hunting rifle is more likely to kill someone than a .223 AR-15 "assault rifle."
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Thought I might add this to make sure everyone knows exactly what the priginal intent og the Amendment was, and is.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."-- Thomas Jefferson Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -- George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." -- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty." --William Grayson; Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the
introduction of what became the Bill of Rights

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." --Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." --Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." --Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29 * N.B. Hamilton is always used by the collectivists to justify their socialist legislation. And look what he says(!).

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." --Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." --Fisher Ames Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." --Elbridge Gerry Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." --Patrick Henry Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention