Anti 2nd Amendment People - Why are you anti?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: SagaLore
I don't think people are necessary against the 2nd amendment. The problem is all those people how use the 2nd amendment as a defense against their questionable behavior involving firearms.

This.


I'm not against it. I just wish the system was better at keeping the weapons out of the hands of those who are irresponsible or who are willing to use them in situations which are technically illegal, but they know that they will never be proven guilty due to lack of evidence so they do it anyways because they believe that what they are doing is "right" regardless of what the law states. Basically, they take the law into their own hands against those who have or are committing a crime and believe that the criminal deserves to be shot when the law clearly states that the punishment for said crime is far from death or gunshot injury. While I realize some states are more flexible with self defense, no state allows one to be a vigilante who is permitted to define their own limits. To do otherwise is abusing the freedoms that are being granted to you. If too many people abuse them too often then they will get taken away and no one wants that to happen.

Obviously, my opinion on this matter varies from case to case. I am all for defending yourself and others, but a line should be drawn.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: djheater
In principle I support:

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.

Not:

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.

---

I support state's rights but that doesn't mean I believe individual citizens have the implied right to carry weapons.

I do not believe it was the intention of the original amendment to allow for handguns in urban centers, for example.

Us Governemnt Code
According to that I'm part of the civilian militia and thus am allowed to own guns. So you may STFU now.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: djheater
In principle I support:

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.

Not:

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.

---

I support state's rights but that doesn't mean I believe individual citizens have the implied right to carry weapons.

I do not believe it was the intention of the original amendment to allow for handguns in urban centers, for example.

And you would be wrong. Simple as that.

And so? You're saying that because you're a gun loving guy? It doesn't mean he's wrong. His belief is different from yours, and this is what I get from this thread. Almost everyone just jumps on each other and goes NO YOU'RE WRONG because they stand on one side or the other.

The issue that people yell YOUR WRONG. is in ones understanding of the Constitution and the Laws of America. If you actually read them you'd realize that anti people are wrong. They are using emotion to dictate their beliefs in what it SHOULD be. Not what it IS.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: djheater
In principle I support:

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.

Not:

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.

---

I support state's rights but that doesn't mean I believe individual citizens have the implied right to carry weapons.

I do not believe it was the intention of the original amendment to allow for handguns in urban centers, for example.

Us Governemnt Code
According to that I'm part of the civilian militia and thus am allowed to own guns. So you may STFU now.

My post of original intent quotes utterly destroys his ACLU fed misinterpretation of it.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: CKent
Never fired a gun in my life, but I recognize the importance of protecting our constitutional freedoms. Those who want to start taking them away should realize that sooner or later a freedom they DO cherish will be stripped from them.

Thank you.
I respect that you never fired a gun in your life as that is a decision you have made. I also respect that just because you have not done something you haven't demonized it. I also respect that you see the issue is of freedoms and the stripping of them.

It brings the question to the anti's that also think people like Bush and McCain are so evil, that if you were to magically take away all the guns from the civilians in the country how would we ensure that the evil people in office didn't take away our other rights?
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
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

Well as a gun has never caused a crime, but only been used in a crime I would assume not much of at all. You fail to see the facts. an inanimate object can not commit a crime, the person holding it commits the crime. By not having a gun, you do not lessen someones intent in causing harm or commiting a crime. If someone wants the cash in a 7-11 they're going to get it one way or the other.
I personally would rather be shot than stabbed/slashed.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
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.

You truly are a Radical Dreamer. You're against guns designed to kill people yet you say I should buy a shotgun because I can kill someone with it.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,908
16,174
126
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

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.

I am not hot on guns since people are too stupid to be trusted with firearms. But I agree with you the underlying social failure is the cause of the gun related death problem.

PS I feel the same way about cars, too many idiots are licensed.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,908
16,174
126
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
We went shooting this morning. Drove up to the river and shot stuff. Even took an old beat up plastic yard Santa and pumped him full of lead.

OH NO! IT WAS YOU!

:p

It's the last time that bastard doesn't bring me my 100" HDTV

Dude, 1080p projectors are in the 2K range now :)
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: Triumph
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.

2nded.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
We went shooting this morning. Drove up to the river and shot stuff. Even took an old beat up plastic yard Santa and pumped him full of lead.

OH NO! IT WAS YOU!

:p

It's the last time that bastard doesn't bring me my 100" HDTV

Dude, 1080p projectors are in the 2K range now :)

Tell that to the next Santa Claus. ;)
As someone mentioned previously in this thread I (as a gun owner) have an entitlement attitude. So I shouldn't have to pay for my new TV it should be given to me.
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,407
39
91
Originally posted by: ICRS
I am not against the 2nd amendments but I think (know) we need more gun restrictions.

1. We need to require mental evaluations every 24 months to make sure people who own guns are of sound mind.
2. We need to do a full scale background check to make so no one with a criminal record gets a gun.
3. No assault weapons should be permitted.
4. The sale of bullets should also be regulated, their should be a limit on how much you can purchase in any given year.
5. Guns should be manufactured solely by government and manufacturing of guns should be punished by life in prison.
6. Owning gun without being licensed should be punished by life in prison.
7. People who own guns should be required to go through training and education every 6 months.
8. There should be random inspections of people who own guns (5% of people each year) to ensure they are complaint with rules.

I can guarantee you that #1 is next to impossible.
Unless you're a raging schizo, just about anyone can act normal. There isn't much of a way to evaluate someone other than to interview them.
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: djheater
In principle I support:

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.

Not:

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.

---

I support state's rights but that doesn't mean I believe individual citizens have the implied right to carry weapons.

I do not believe it was the intention of the original amendment to allow for handguns in urban centers, for example.

Us Governemnt Code
According to that I'm part of the civilian militia and thus am allowed to own guns. So you may STFU now.

My post of original intent quotes utterly destroys his ACLU fed misinterpretation of it.


You guys are so preposterously vicious it's impossible to even listen to you. You may have valid points, but you're such unbelievable assholes it's hard to hear them.

Calm down.

 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: astroidea
EFT

Top google results of EFT...
Emotional Freedom Techniques
Emotional Focused Therapy
Electronic Funds Transfer
Electronic Field Trips

Can you pick one? Or is it none of the above?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
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.

I completely agree with you. That isn't the specific issue I was addressing there, and so I felt that I didn't need to mention it in response.

We were comparing figures in the 18th century to those today. I honestly don't think parenting, education, or gang activity were relevant issues then.

....Do you?

I'm addressing the practical need for firearms in a frontier environment to a practical need for them in our current society


Problem is, I haven't seen many absolute 2nd amendment supporters willing to pony up for education and social welfare in order to address this issue. They're more interested in increasing the prison population than preventing crime (...which is likely even more expensive in the long run).
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
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.

:confused:

(bolded for emphasis)
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Amused, there are several duplicate quotes in your post, FYI.

Based on the quotes in your post, though, I have to say that it's kind of scary how useless the 2nd amendment is at keeping our government from potentially infringing upon our liberties in this day and age. Even if every person owned a gun, our armed forces could obliterate just about every citizen of the US easily. We are in effect at a state of affairs now where we would have zero chance of surviving an uprising against our government's military forces. Well, that is, if they all actually came back from overseas to oppress us.
 

Kyteland

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2002
5,747
1
81
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.

Since somebody brought up Nazis, I'd just like to point out that the word you're looking for is foments.

</GrammarNazi>
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: torpid
Amused, there are several duplicate quotes in your post, FYI.

Based on the quotes in your post, though, I have to say that it's kind of scary how useless the 2nd amendment is at keeping our government from potentially infringing upon our liberties in this day and age. Even if every person owned a gun, our armed forces could obliterate just about every citizen of the US easily. We are in effect at a state of affairs now where we would have zero chance of surviving an uprising against our government's military forces. Well, that is, if they all actually came back from overseas to oppress us.

And if they're willing to oppress us.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,908
16,174
126
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
We went shooting this morning. Drove up to the river and shot stuff. Even took an old beat up plastic yard Santa and pumped him full of lead.

OH NO! IT WAS YOU!

:p

It's the last time that bastard doesn't bring me my 100" HDTV

Dude, 1080p projectors are in the 2K range now :)

Tell that to the next Santa Claus. ;)
As someone mentioned previously in this thread I (as a gun owner) have an entitlement attitude. So I shouldn't have to pay for my new TV it should be given to me.

stop stockpiling guns/ammo and you'll be able to afford a projector :)
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
0
I don't think anyone is anti second amendment. However, I think an intelligence test should be required for gun ownership because so many gun owners are complete morons. Yeah, it's elitist, but for a damn good reason. But hey, I also think an intelligence test should be required for a driver's license, and that would be economically disastrous :p

Also, semi-automatics aren't really necessary for anyone for any reason and really push the boundary of reasonable gun ownership. Hunting rifles are pretty much the high end of reasonable gun ownership. Anyone who argues that they MUST have a .50 cal machine gun by the second amendment is fucking insane (yes, a minority of gun owners think this way, but a lot of gun owners are fairly reasonable people)