You got a cite for that?

Libs think that because of civilization that humans no longer need or have a right to defend their own lives.

Affordable taxpayer-subsidized healthcare is a right…good paying jobs are a right…iphones are a right…equality is a right…free food is a right…everything is a “right” to liberals except the common sense notions of survival and civility that all men should share.

The Bill of Rights is not about making men equal, its about giving men an equal set of rights in the eyes of the law to attempt to survive and prosper.

Civilization sure has a lot of criminals in it, and you know what all those gun-toting street thugs and gangsters carry? GUNS! ILLEGAL GUNS! And they all vote Democrat.

The right of a human being to survive…to defend himself from physical harm or death is the first right of all creatures. You’d think that since libs are big on evolution they would support that, but they are too dumb.

What ways are that? A knife, pepper spray, a really big stick, bad breath?

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I find that disturbing.

I have my concealed carry permit for the sole purpose of protecting my loved ones, myself, and those who can’t protect themselves. I believe its a Biblical mandate.

That being said, I think gun-ownership is vital to any free country’s survival. Without the common folk being armed, the government is able to walk all over us. And the US Armed forces are a majority of conservatives, or at least republicans, and they are unhappy with the direction the country is going. And when they are ordered to go take away someone’s rights, I think a majority will stand firm in their beliefs. Before you know it, there will be a revolution. How can there not be a revolution? The country is split almost in half (somewhat like the civil war), and when there is that kind of unrest, there is bound to be some sort of conflict.

Owning a firearm, is NOT a human right… It IS however an American right.
Not liking it, is not grounds to try to get rid of it. If you think it’s outdated, or wrong, I’d ask you to research some American history. If you did, you would understand that the second amendment was designed to stop American citizens from ever being at the mercy of an unjust dictatorship, and give them the tools they need to stop the tyranny of evil men. That being said, our right has been undermined by politicians who have seen to it that no private citizen can compete with any military or law enforcement. Which is a whoe different conversation.

But in my interpretation of it, we should still have well organized militia’s to train citizens how to use their firearms. Instead militias have a horrible stigma attached to them, and you’re branded a racist lunatic for joining one. That results in untrained people owning firearms (which I agree with most Democrats is dangerous and wrong). Trained people enjoying hunting or sports shooting is a great thing, and being able to defend yourself and anyone else who needs defending is too.

I’m not employed by the NRA, so they don’t pay me, they just provide my credentials. That being said, it is simple and fairly cheap to get a decent level of firearm safety and operation training. I charge $100 for a CCW training class, and $25 for a basic safety and how to aim class. There are many other options available, ranging from how to reload your own ammo, to how to carry a firearm and defend yourself and others in public. Some classes require police and/or attorney participation. Your prices will vary.

So I suggest as a happy medium, instead of trying to change the Constitution of the United States of America, encourage people who are interested in firearms to seek out proper training.

Thanks

P.S. “Commies” don’t give money to banks, bit of an oxymoron, moron.

But I guess it takes one to know one.

Douchebags. (you, just wo we’re clear)

The “guns are bad, they should be banned” argument always fails.

What have I told you about ste ling punctuation p rentheses question m rk p rentheses

Now your ste ling my postrophe s p rentheses excl mation m rk p rentheses

It’s still a case of “if you take guns away from the people, then only the criminals will have guns.” The culture in America is so very different than in England, and I’m not sure it’s possible to lower crime by severely limiting guns to the point that I can’t have one on my nightstand.

Most laws are based upon slippery slope arguments that try to provide safety and recourse to victims, while not impeding the right of others to do as they please, as long as they don’t victimize anyone else.

For instance: (And I know driving is not a ‘right’ granted in the Constitution, but) Your ‘permission’ to drive is removed if you are mentally or physically unable to control your vehicle, or if you use said vehicle in an illegal manner…

I.e., Drinking of alcoholic beverages (by persons over the age of 21, of course) is perfectly legal. Getting behind the wheel of your vehicle afterward is not. Even if you don’t ‘accidentally’ kill someone, it is still a crime because of the documented risk of doing so.

That was really the point of the numbers that I posted. Namely, that it does not matter if the deaths are intentional or accidental, or whether the guns are legal or illegal, or whether the shooter is a law-abiding person or not, the mere presence of millions upon millions of weapons means we (Americans) have a 250,000% higher chance of being killed by a gun than will a person living in Great Britain.

Being a gun nut from Texas, I feel as though I’m a bit of a traitor saying this, but I don’t have a problem with having to take a test to buy your first gun. We don’t require testing for every purchase of a car, so I don’t see the need for a test every time you get a new gun. I also don’t have a problem with licensing guns, provided that the government can be trusted not to act like they did during Katrina and round up LEGAL guns from law-abiding citizens for disposal. Since they can’t be trusted, no licensing.

If you’ll take your argument for changing the Constitution, slaves being freed granted a new right to people, it didn’t remove a right previously held. Banning guns or otherwise amending the Constitution to take guns away from law-abiding people is doing just that: taking something away.

Is someone stealing my letters? First an ‘e’ and now an ‘r’ … *looks around suspiciously*

But if we can’t (as a nation) even agree on the necessity of having certain guidelines about who can or cannot possess dangerous weapons, how would we ever be able to come up with guidelines about who can or cannot be allowed to have children?

And yes, the incidents to which you refer are caused by idiotic people who shouldn’t be allowed to breed in the first place, but alas, NONE of those incidents would have happened had a gun not been present.

I know guns don’t kill people, people do… but having access to a gun instead of say, a spoon, sure makes murde , suicide or accidental death much more quick and effective.

And Constitutional rights HAVE changed based upon what the founders were unable to imagine: Slaves being freed and then, becoming 100% of a person (vice the 2/3rds they were originally granted) and women being allowed to vote.

And actually the press, even during the time of the birth of our nation, was just as nasty and spiteful as it is now… in fact, some of the political commentary and cartoons would shock us today (since, these days we stop short of using certain words and epithets)

Remember that the “right to free speech” applies only to dissing your government without fear of reprisal. I can talk crap about you all day and not fall under the right of free speech. I fall under slander laws, which are different. Lying under oath is also separate from free speech in that it’s not speaking out against the government.

If you’re going to change a fundamental right as given by the Constitution based on what the Founders should have foreseen and didn’t, then we also need to change that pesky right about Freedom of the Press. They’re getting pretty stupid lately. I’m sure that the Founders didn’t foresee that one either…

I don’t believe the founding fathers could have foreseen a type of weapon kept in the home that was so easy to (mis)use that toddlers would be firing them at each other and themselves.

You very seldom, if ever, hear of a child killed by a shotgun or rifle (except that unfortunate child that accidentally shot himself in the head last year with an Uzi at a ‘gun fair’)

Even the military doesn’t issue that many handguns, relatively speaking, as they are not good for combat, but very frequently present at ‘accidental shootings’. They also do not allow military personnel to keep firearms in their barracks.

As with the 1st Amendment, there are common sense limits that apply – Slander, Liable, False Rescue Calls, Lying Under Oath, etc. are not covered as ‘free speech’

There is no reason that the ‘right to bear arms’ should not come with some common sense restrictions (like having people pass a ‘road’ test with their weapon of choice before being issued a license – for the same reason a license is required to operate a motor vehicle – operating one without a clue as to what you are doing endangers innocent by-standers)

does the 1st apply only to hand-cranked printing presses and not TV/radio/internet?

does the 4th amendment only apply to searches of horse-drawn carriages?

does the 10th only apply to states formed from the original 13 colonies?

oh and the bill of rights GIVES nothing. it merely DEFINES rights that already exist.

the founders intended civilians to carry the same shoulder-fired arms the military had. regardless of what those were. because once a government starts getting the idea they can do whatever they want…with no consequences..they do it.

1st amendment was supposed to stop the government with the light of public scrutiny. 2nd amendment was to stop the government when they no longer gave a damn about public scrutiny.