Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Ban guns!


Ban Guns?  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Ban all guns?

    • yes
      2
    • no
      37
  2. 2. Ban only rifles with high-capacity magazines

    • yes
      8
    • no
      31


Recommended Posts

I'm just kidding... Just curious on the thoughts in here regarding the knee-jerking politicians wanting to ban the "scary, black, assault rifles"  (and most every other gun eventually).

I am pro-gun; mostly because of the proliferation of illegally-armed criminals/psychos.  I believe the thought of running into a sane and trained, legally-armed citizen would give criminals pause.

Do you watch any of the National news shows?  I enjoy laughing at Britains Piers Morgan, because he thinks he knows what's best for Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to arm teachers and students and average Joe's on the street, because the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

When purchasing a gun, everyone should be required to check a box indicating if they're a "good guy" or "bad guy".  It's real simple... if they indicate they're a bad guy, don't sell them a gun (duh).

 

I agree with LBHalos17, that a "sane and trained" society is good for us.  For example, look at all the training the LAPD and Torrance PD have received.  If we can only have more people act in a similar manner, we will be a f*cking utopia!

 

Yay Guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain this to me, Gun Nuts.  I was watching a show on National Geographic about a gun auction and they were in Colorado.  A guy sold a Mack 10 with a suppressor on it.

 

So why is a fully automatic text book sized sub machine gun that is nearly silent legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain this to me, Gun Nuts.  I was watching a show on National Geographic about a gun auction and they were in Colorado.  A guy sold a Mack 10 with a suppressor on it.

 

So why is a fully automatic text book sized sub machine gun that is nearly silent legal?

Why would it not be legal? There's no need to wake the neighbors while you fend off the invading horde or just get those damn javelinas out of your garbage cans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am divided on this issue. I am not for an outright ban. For something like that to work, it would have had to have been implemented over 200 years ago. Removing guns from the streets simply isn't realistic. However, the founding fathers had no intention, IMO, of private individuals being armed like small countries, and they had no intention of the general public having open access to weapons they could not have dreamed of when the Second Amendment was written. The purpose of the amendment was for the citizenry to have weapons in case they were called into battle as a "well organized militia" - not to arm the entire populace to the teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain this to me, Gun Nuts.  I was watching a show on National Geographic about a gun auction and they were in Colorado.  A guy sold a Mack 10 with a suppressor on it.

 

So why is a fully automatic text book sized sub machine gun that is nearly silent legal?

 

why shouldnt they be is the better question?  nd dont even try to say it will stop crime, it wont.. and even these tragic acts arent likely to be affected.  there is zero evidence to support either claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VHF- I think you are reading the 2nd Amendment incorrectly or incompletely.

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.

 

It seems very clear that the main intention is to arm the people for creation of a militia. That is the opening statement. The fledgling country did not have much of an army, and citizens might have been called upon to fight. I don't see much there to misinterpret or read "incorrectly" or "incompletely".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should read the USSC rulings on the subject as well as most state constitutions on this subject.

 

Since people cry "constitutional right" on this issue, I am more interested in the intentions of the people who wrote the amendment than the interpretations of those applying it two centuries later to a context far different from the one for which it was written. I am looking at it from the perspective of the authors of the amendment. They could not have possibly imagined AK-47s and high capacity handguns when they wrote this. Weapons were flintlock and had to be loaded one round at a time when this was conceived. Killing dozens of people in a short period of time with a firearm was impossible.

 

IMO, if you need an assault rifle for home defense, you are either an incredibly bad shot who will undoubtedly injure or kill uninvolved people in the process, or your home is being invaded by Navy SEALS, in which case you're screwed anyway.

 

I'm not trying to take your guns. I just believe that there are some that should be confined to military and law enforcement use. This isn't the 1700s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since people cry "constitutional right" on this issue, I am more interested in the intentions of the people who wrote the amendment than the interpretations of those applying it a century or more later to a context for which it was never written. That isn't the entire picture, I grant you, but I am looking at it from the perspective of the authors of the amendment. They could not have possibly imagined AK-47s and high capacity handguns when they wrote this. Weapons were flintlock and had to be loaded one round at a time when this was conceived. Killing dozens of people in a short period of time with a firearm was impossible.

IMO, if you need an assault rifle for home defense, you are either an incredibly bad shot who will undoubtedly injure or kill uninvolved people in the process, or your home is being invaded by Navy SEALS, in which case you're screwed anyway.

I'm not trying to take your guns. I just believe that there are some that should be confined to military and law enforcement use. This isn't the 1700s.

well then, you would be happy to know that the Constitution is the primary focus of the USSC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there's many ways to interpret the 2nd amendment but there are eight words that leave little doubt about their intent. "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed". This implies a singular (the right) that "shall not" be infringed. If you don't like it then change it but don't try to play semantics with the very clear language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...