English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It prevents the government from preventing you from "bearing arms." It never even says you can OWN a gun; only that you can "bear arms," or CARRY weapons.

It does not prevent the government from making you register your gun. It does not prevent the government from running a background check on you. And if you really love guns... you should be willing to go through all this to own one. Because you should be completely in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

I think, if nothing else, Virginia Tech should have taught you that dangerous weapons + dangerous people = death.

Don't tell me guns aren't dangerous; they are. That's why you don't give one to a five-year-old.

2007-05-09 07:14:36 · 5 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government Politics

Heart and Troll: Point is, no one is taking your stupid little phallic replacement toys away from you. No one is even trying. And if you think a bunch of teenagers have the emotional presence of mind to pull their guns on a crazed killer and shoot without killing each other in the process, you're absolutely fooling yourself.

2007-05-09 07:38:20 · update #1

5 answers

i agree. i have no problems with background checks, gun registration, and licenses to conceal it.

2007-05-09 07:23:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

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.

Are you trying to say that we have no right to keep arms?
Oh yeah, I love it when people say that it is a group right (none of the others are) because of the well-regulated militia portion. I feel sorry for those who can't read and misinterperet the amendment.
If you register guns and the government becomes tyranical then they know where all the guns are. I'm not sure that is such a good idea. Besides, that doesn't solve the problem anyway.

I am for keeping the guns out of the hands of dangerous people but registration doesn't accomplish this.
If you want to do background checks, ok.

I don't give a lot of things to a 5 year old. Especially a copy of the Constitution.

2007-05-09 08:17:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Why the selective extract from the second amendment?

It is most telling that your explanation did not include the right of the people to *KEEP* and bear arms. You omitted the word KEEP. Then you used your half truth to imply that the people cannot OWN guns.

Cars are dangerous too, so are knives. Some people kill with their bare hands.

If nothing else? Va Tech should have taught you that declaring the campus a "gun-free zone" did nothing to help the people who needed to defend themselves before the police got there.

ADDITION: BlackAcre...what exactly, in the minds of the framers, was a militia?

ADDITION: Note how the Lame One, in his addition, does not address my critique of his question, that he purposely omitted the word KEEP from his question. He even claimed that the second amendment said "only that you can "bear arms," or CARRY weapons." How bizarre, that he ignored the right of the people to keep arms, and then ignored me calling him on it.

He calls my right to keep a weapon a "stupid little phallic replacement toy." Here, he shows his contempt, both for the use of weapons and for those who choose to exercise that right.

Also note his bizarre claim that "No one is even trying" to take away the people's weapons. He blatantly ignores that at Virginia Tech, guns were *BANNED.*

And as for his "teenager" comment, perhaps he can explain the efficiency with which the Columbine teenagers did their evil. Then, perhaps he can explain the praise given Meriwether Lewis for his skill with a long rifle when he was only 9 years old.

People have the right to defend themselves-with arms. That right was stripped from them at VA Tech.

2007-05-09 07:35:55 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0 2

Very concise question, I will like to reiterate that Green Cards wouldn't be able to be used to purchase automatic weapons if George Bush would have reinstated Clinton's Automatic Weapons Bill from the Waco,Texas results and David Koresh. Cho Seung-Hui just might have had a harder time of purchasing two automatic Glock oosies and ammunition. Just a thought that most of America is thinking about since the Virgina Tech massacre. By the way I own several weapons myself legally, but have been very careful to the use and purpose of the weapons.

2007-05-09 08:24:57 · answer #4 · answered by leonard bruce 6 · 0 1

The Second Amendment also refers to a "well regulated militia". Why do people always overlook this rather important aspect?

2007-05-09 07:21:38 · answer #5 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers