Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[Thermal]

LOL!!



When pigs fly.

Watch a hockey game. The bastards can get aggressive.

 

[PitPat]

At least they'll be polite aboot it.

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps even apologetic.

 

[PitPat]

Yeah, sorry, forgot to mention that.

 

[Thermal]

I'm sorry too, eh?

 

[Donal]

The Founding Fathers added some individual rights in the Bill of Rights. They applied to all persons in the USA.

If you define "persons" as white, land-owning men.

There's a reason we had to go back later and add more Amendments.

 

[Hercules56]

If you define "persons" as white, land-owning men.

There's a reason we had to go back later and add more Amendments.

Constitution says nothing about that. Just says "persons".

 

[Donal]

And how did that work in practice?

 

[Thermal]

Constitution says nothing about that. Just says "persons".

And the founding fathers were table flipping the Articles of Confederation in their day, and expected the Constiturion table flipped in the next generation. Hell, they quickly amended the Constitution they just drew up with the Bill of Rights itself. I'm pretty sure they would be revolted by people with such stagnant thinking centuries later. Patriots constantly move forward.

 

[Beerina]

Who's arguing with the Bill of Rights?

So far the 3rd Amendment has served me well, had no military taking quarters in my home without permission. Mind you, it's a time of peace.

There have been 2 SC cases on the 3rd Amendment. One questioned whether police taking over your house as a command post for nearby hostage situation counted (Nope! Police are not the army!) Don't remember the other.

 

[Stacyhs]

Neither the people nor the Founding Fathers could even conceive of a society wherein mass shootings in schools, markets, concerts, etc. could kill hundreds of people in minutes or of the type of killing machines guns would become. So spare me what they wrote in the late 18th century.

And stop with this crap that anyone thinks a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves and their families. It's insane.

You're the one who used a strawman, not me: "A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion"

What comment of mine leads you to believe that a person can't use deadly force to defend themselves? Was it this one:

Quote: And stop with this crap that anyone thinks a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves and their families. It's insane.

Or maybe this one:

Quote:
Depends, doesn't it? An eight- year old breaks into my house to steal my Playstation. That doesn't give me the right to shoot and kill him.

Try reading for comprehension before posting.

OK, glad we agree that sometimes deadly force is necessary and warranted to defend yourself and others.

What person has ever said otherwise? Please, don't try and make that into some kind of 'win' as the right to defend yourself with deadly force when warranted is not dependent on guns.

Sigh. You seem incapable of understanding that one is not dependent on the other. EVERY country gives its citizens the right to defend themselves, even with deadly force, including those with very strict gun laws.

Glad we agree that sometimes the use of deadly force with a gun in self defense should be allowed.

Sigh. I've never said otherwise.

An assault rifle is fully automatic.
An AR 15 is semi-automatic. AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle; it stand for Armalite Rifle. Armalite is the company that developed it.

But I think this argument about AR 15's not being an assault rifle or a machine gun are overly nit-picking excuses popular with the "But MAH FREEEEEEDOMS!" gun nuts. The fact is AR 15's can kill hundreds of people in a very short time as is seen over and over and FREAKING OVER AGAIN. They are NOT necessary for self-protection, hunting or anything else. They are mass killings machines. So spare me any of the usual crap about the 2nd A and "inalienable rights" cuz I don't give a damn.

So you don't care about inalienable rights ...

Strawmanning much there? Saying we don't have an inalienable right to own an AR 15 is NOT saying I don't care about ANY 'inalienable rights'.

or you dont believe the right to self-defense with a deadly weapon is one of them?

Please read again all the posts above paying special attention to the highlighted parts. Then quote exactly where I've said that I don't "believe in the right to self-defense with a deadly weapon". Unless you can do that, stop putting words in my mouth or twisting them to suit your agenda.

 

[Hercules56]

An assault rifle is fully automatic.
An AR 15 is semi-automatic. AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle; it stand for Armalite Rifle. Armalite is the company that developed it.

But I think this argument about AR 15's not being an assault rifle or a machine gun are overly nit-picking excuses popular with the "But MAH FREEEEEEDOMS!" gun nuts. The fact is AR 15's can kill hundreds of people in a very short time as is seen over and over and FREAKING OVER AGAIN. They are NOT necessary for self-protection, hunting or anything else. They are mass killings machines. So spare me any of the usual crap about the 2nd A and "inalienable rights" cuz I don't give a damn.

A Glock can easily kill just as many people as an AR-15 in the exact same amount of time. Yet they are not assault weapons, no one considers them to be such. Even in the strongest assault weapon ban laws, they are not banned.

Proving that your laws are based on absolute ignorance.

As far as you not giving a damn about the inalienable right to self defense with deadly weapons, that's your cross to bear.

 

[Donal]

Which Glock? Glock is a manufacturer, not a specific gun.

 

[Hercules56]

Which Glock? Glock is a manufacturer, not a specific gun.

Your average standard Glock handgun.

 

[Thermal]

Your average standard Glock handgun.

Which doesn't do the kind of damage that a .223 does. That's why a military AR-15 doesn't rock 9mm rounds.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4043345/ar-15-handgun-bullet-wounds-difference/

 

[Hercules56]

Which doesn't do the kind of damage that a .223 does. That's why a military AR-15 doesn't rock 9mm rounds.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4043345/ar-15-handgun-bullet-wounds-difference/

So you're saying a semi-auto rifle that shoots 9mm should not be considered an assault weapon??

 

[Thermal]

So you're saying a semi-auto rifle that shoots 9mm should not be considered an assault weapon??

Didn't say anything of the kind. You feeling OK bro?

 

[Hercules56]

Didn't say anything of the kind. You feeling OK bro?

How I am feeling is not relevant to this thread.

 

[Thermal]

How I am feeling is not relevant to this thread.

Well it is if you're going to be responding to things that are only in your head. We need to protect our sanity too, you know.

 

[Hercules56]

Well.it is if your going to be responding to things that are only in your head. We need to protect our sanity too, you know.

My sanity is not the topic of this thread.

Let's get back on topic, k?