Uh smart guy... first off, not all those quotes belong to me -the one about the constitution being a living document, I didn't say that. Two the rest are facts, with the exception of me calling the comments ignorant and childish - Well, the ignorant is factual, but the childish - thats my opinion, but its my opinion about the comments, not the topic at hand.

Please, think before typing. Thanks

 

=



???

 

Wtf?

 

1. An armed militia is sort of like BYOB at a BBQ. If you go without a beer, you better run into a friend who can sport you one. With the situation in the world today, I would argue that it as important now for American Citizens to have guns as it was when the Constitution was written.

2.You have to prove point one before you can make point two at all, and are mistaken in any event, as the right to bear arms is not dependant on there being a need for an organized militia.

You may not like it, but I don't remember it being changed, it would hve been in the paper.

Benjamin, sometimes you can come across as well...lets just say the idiot meter does not always stay at zero when you get your blood up a bit on a discussion. Of course I am an idiot more often than not, but that is because I would rather be funny than smart.

 

Clearly. By the way, did you notice that you were replying to a post by Qbacca and not me?

Seriously, Tobra - go **** yourself.

 

Clearly no one is paying attention to me because I am not trying to foment rage. :sad:

 

We've probably all heard that joke where people say if some country or force invaded our country that they would never get past the southern states. Well that's all it is. A joke.

Civilians would have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE against a trained and well supplied military force in an all out fight. Neither would a well coordinated militia. Hell the National Gaurd wouldn't do that much good. If the US were invaded it would take Army, Navy, Marine, Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Air Force all working together to protect that sweet land of ours. Theoretically....

Here's hoping it never happens. :usa:

 

It hasn't been changed. That is the original text of the bill of rights that I quoted.


The idiot meter, as you put it, is pegged.

 

So it seems that the general idea here isn't to take away our guns, but change the wording of the second amendment. Is that what this arguement has become about?

Pretty weak.

I won't bother replying to any of the constitution he said, she said. So to speak. But what I will reply to is the Fatbooty post about gun show loopholes. Now I suppose closing such a loophole would decrease illegal gun trafficing a little bit. But how about the guns already in illegal circulation and the theft of guns from various sources? Those guns still exist and will be used in some sort of illegal way if they're bing sold illegally. Guns also aren't limited to being produced in this country. To close all illegal gun trafficing you'd have to: A) confiscate and melt down all illegal, stolen, etc guns within the borders of the country. B) Shut down all illegal smuggling. Not allow outside guns within the borders of the country. C) Write laws to ensure that no gun may be sold without proper licenses and checks. D) Take away guns purchased legally by citizens of this country. Then maybe. Just maybe guns will no longer be a problem here.

But that's the problem isn't it? We have laws that are supposed to stop illegal gun sales and smuggling. But somehow these things happen. They happen every day and one more law isn't going to stop it. Enforcing the laws will. Law upon law upon law can be passed but nothing will ever change unless they're enforced in the first place. Until then, the law abiding citizens of this country need to be able to protect themselves. To fight fire with fire, if you will.

Insurance from robberies I remember also in your post. Really though, so many people who are robbed at gunpoint are killed even after following the robber's instructions. No amount of insurance can bring them back. Yes, having a gun themselves can also result in their own death. I won't deny it, but to some people being able to defend themselves from a robbery is better than bending over and taking it and letting their insurance clean up the mess.

I will say that this planet would be much better off if no guns existed. If they were all blinked out of existence or melted down after being confiscated, but blinked out of existence seems more likely to happen. Sure the world and it's people would be much safer and crime would drop to lows never seen before. If you can make that happen I'll back you 100%. But as long as criminals have guns and use them on non-military/law-enforcement citizens, we should have the right to defend ourselves.

 

I agree there are illegal guns already out there and something needs to be done to address that issue; but wouldn't also be to our benefit to close off one method of getting guns into illegal circulation in the first place?