Should the 2nd amendment (Right to Bear Arms) be Abolished?

[Walsh06]

I use mine as a coffee table

Glad Im not the only one. People give me weird looks but I knew someone else had to do it too.

[thehod]

No, I'm addressing the ludicrous argument that guns are intended to kill, even when their owners clearly do not intend to kill. Heck, I doubt you'll find gun manufacturers who intend their product to kill innocent people.

A firearm has no purpose except to expel projectiles, not to kill. A gun that never is used to kill anyone but is only fired at paper targets is fulfilling its purpose, as determined by the gun's owner. You don't get to tell me that my firearms are intended to kill when I do not intend them to kill.

You are confusing use with purpose and being quite dense about it, either wilfully or ignorantly. You are wrong on this, and when an entire room is telling you you are wrong you might want to stop and consider the possibility that you've been talking out of your rear end.

[Valerie]

When a roomful of people who disagree with the Constitution of the US and who, for the most part, don't know very much about firearms or how the vast majority of people use them tell me I'm wrong, why would I consider that I'm the one talking out of my rear end?

If you believe a gun's purpose is to kill based on what it was invented for, you might want to get off line, because the Internet was invented as a tool of war and espionage.

[dupont2005]

Just because we aren't gun nuts doesn't mean we don't know about firearms. I obviously know more than you about the subject. As far as the constitution goes, we've already banned automatic weapons, hand grenades, anthrax, and sawed off shotguns. Somehow we still have a constitution. If we banned AR-15's, we'd still have a constitution. Have you read the constitution? Where does it guarantee your right to own an Ar-15 with high capacity magazines?

[Vibranium]

When a roomful of people who disagree with the Constitution of the US and who, for the most part, don't know very much about firearms or how the vast majority of people use them tell me I'm wrong, why would I consider that I'm the one talking out of my rear end?

If you believe a gun's purpose is to kill based on what it was invented for, you might want to get off line, because the Internet was invented as a tool of war and espionage.

I thought Al Gore invented it to stop global warming


and my issue is that the gun culture in the US does need to be addressed...it is a part of our national identity and its tied in with a bunch of things....from militias to western expansion to hunting

[king mob]

Statistics show that about 40 people per year in the UK die from being stuck during car chases. I would consider all of those to be cases of "cars as weapons." And these are just the times where someone gets killed. I haven't seen the statistics on the times people just get hurt, or no one gets hurt (or well, animals getting hurt or killed). A weapon is still a weapon, even if it doesn't hurt someone.

A car chase is entirely a different thing, and there's issues regarding police driving and suspects losing control, it's not deliberate and it's not using cars as a weapon. It's still a logical fallacy to compare cars with guns.

[Jerry W. Loper]

What can be done to the 2nd Amendment can be done to the 1st, or the 3rd or 4th. The right to bear arms is sort of the canary in the mineshaft for the other rights in the Bill of Rights, right to free speech, right to a trial by jury of peers, etc.

[king mob]

Let me get this straight here.

You think the licensing regime for cars should be far stricter than it is already.
You also think teachers should be armed to prevent more school attacks.

The device used for transportation should be more heavily regulated
The device used to kill should be more widely spread.

That's your opinion on this matter. And you don't see the gargantuan logical contradiction in those points of views?

There's no point in arguing with her. She clearly considers these sort of murders as acceptable judging by how she obfuscates and basically talks shite.

[dupont2005]

What can be done to the 2nd Amendment can be done to the 1st, or the 3rd or 4th. The right to bear arms is sort of the canary in the mineshaft for the other rights in the Bill of Rights, right to free speech, right to a trial by jury of peers, etc.

So do you think nukes should be available on the internet to anyone who wants one?

[Slam_Bradley]

What can be done to the 2nd Amendment can be done to the 1st, or the 3rd or 4th. The right to bear arms is sort of the canary in the mineshaft for the other rights in the Bill of Rights, right to free speech, right to a trial by jury of peers, etc.

Anybody who doesn't think that the 4th Amendment hasn't already been completely gutted hasn't been paying attention.

I find the people who are most vehement that the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct are more than ready to see the 4th continue to be trampled on by the police.

[Vibranium]

What can be done to the 2nd Amendment can be done to the 1st, or the 3rd or 4th. The right to bear arms is sort of the canary in the mineshaft for the other rights in the Bill of Rights, right to free speech, right to a trial by jury of peers, etc.

maybe, I mean its def the "slipper slope" argument and not outside of the realm of possibility

[king mob]

And your cups go flying every time you try to set them on the spinning blade.

But that's the price for his right to use a lawnmower as a coffee table, and anyhow, there's plenty more cups out there.

[dupont2005]

Anybody who doesn't think that the 4th Amendment hasn't already been completely gutted hasn't been paying attention.

Same with the first. Wouldn't gay marriage be protected under the first amendment? Wouldn't religious idols in courtrooms be a violation of it? Doesn't the second amendment often violate an unarmed burglars right to a trial by jury when the homeowner shoots him in the back as he attempts to flee?

[Slam_Bradley]

Same with the first. Wouldn't gay marriage be protected under the first amendment? Wouldn't religious idols in courtrooms be a violation of it?

Gay marriage is more of an equal protection issue. I've never seen a religious idol in a courtroom...so I'd have to see what it was. The First Amendment has generally fared better over the years than many of the others.

[dupont2005]

Gay marriage is more of an equal protection issue. I've never seen a religious idol in a courtroom...so I'd have to see what it was. The First Amendment has generally fared better over the years than many of the others.

The first amendment is freedom of religion. If a religious institution can grant a marriage to a straight couple, and they wish to grant one to a gay couple, it would be an infringement on their practice of religion to deny then that right.

A bible is a religious idol, they're common in courtrooms.