You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
47

[–] Possibly_a_Carrot 2 points 47 points (+49|-2) ago 

More convenient and more legal. I've never understood limits on fire-arms, given the US constitution...what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

23
20

[–] guinness2 23 points 20 points (+43|-23) ago 

The US is largely a Christian nation and Christians are particularly skilled at redefining the meanings of words so suit them... I'm always amazed by how many Christians can interpret "thou shalt not" into "please do".

1
5

[–] revofire 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

That has no correlation... the people who hate the firearms the most are predominantly atheist. How does the bullshit you spewed tie into this?

9
4

[–] CirdanValen 9 points 4 points (+13|-9) ago 

The US is largely a liberal nation and liberals are particularly skilled at redefining the meanings of words so suit them... I'm always amazed by how many liberals can interpret "thou shalt not" into "please do".

FTFY

0
3

[–] J0HN_CENA 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

And by christians... you mean pharisaical types... who often times aren't even christian.

1
2

[–] Possibly_a_Carrot 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

....fair enough.

4
11

[–] rob_white 4 points 11 points (+15|-4) ago  (edited ago)

I'm a gun owner and a CC permit holder, I agree with Trump on this as it's simple common sense and makes travel much easier, however there must be limits on the the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it's far more complex than you make it out to be. And just to be clear, the constitution does not mention fire-arms, it states arms.

Should we all be allowed anti-tank weapons? Land mines, our own SAM sites? It's a valid question as these are clearly arms. Further it is argued that the writers of the constitution had two reasons for the 2nd amendment; self defense and to over throw a government that became tyrannical. How can the citizenry overthrow a tyrannical government that has much high powered weapons than the citizens are allowed?

On the other side people tend to say that the constitution was written in the 18th century before such arms existed, it was single shot muskets etc, so why then can we own modern fully automatic weapons?

The US constitution was written in much simpler times, this has caused issues as to what arms a citizen can actually bear. The argument is nearly always where the line is to what arms are allowed, you get people at both ends of the extremes.

Rights do have limits, generally when your rights start to affect others.

0
3

[–] Scine 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I think a reasonable compromise is that a citizen who passes a criminal background check, should be able to own any weapon that a typical soldier on the battlefield would carry.

In a free an open society such as ours, there are always going to be deranged people who do horrific shit (I've seen the Aurora shooting pictures), but for the government to tell me I can't own a particular weapon without good cause, is simply telling me it wants control over me.

I'm a gun owner and CC permit holder in multiple states as well.

1
3

[–] ValkyrieHerja 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

This is an excellent point, and I always wondered about that. I'm not an American, but everyone goes on about following these rules that were written in a different time. It's not so simple to apply them to modern society because we have things beyond the comprehension of the writers.

How do you think the line can be drawn? I always wondered why people were allowed to have the big assault rifles, what possible purpose could they serve beyond violence? Turns out some people have them for fun/sport. The proportion of people who have them for fun vs the people who have them for violence is going to be far more in favour of the enthusiasts. And people who want them for nefarious purposes would find a way to get them regardless of laws.

So laws only prevent law abiding citizens from acquiring things.

But is there any reason to own land mines or anti-tank weapons? Should people be allowed to have them? Would extremely harsh penalties for use during peace time be enough to control it?

0
2

[–] revofire 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

No and no. Fast firing rifles were there way before the 2nd amendment was written. Furthermore a civilian battleship was allowed to join the war to help protect harbors. Did you know that? It applies to today, if I could make a battleship or fighter jet (and afford it), it's my right. Guess what you don't know... if some evil guy was rich enough to do the same... no one would know. He'd have planned ahead. So making ANY of this illegal for citizens is fundamentally wrong.

0
2

[–] littlemikemac 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

People owned their own artillery during the revolution. People own these things now, they're just restricted. The idea is that any take over would have to be a complete take over of every part of government otherwise it will become a quagmire. Besides enough well armed infantry can over run the infantry support that is vital to any modern military.

0
5

[–] littlemikemac 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Probably the same reason we have dry counties. Corrupt local officials wanting a reason for people to want to bribe them.

0
2

[–] Maxcactus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

These dry counties have been that way for a long time. They go back to a time when the bible thumpers were a majority in those places and the politicians knew how to act in response to that force.

0
2

[–] Possibly_a_Carrot 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Unfortunately, I humbly believe it runs a bit deeper than that :-/

I truly wish it were as simple as you said here.

0
3

[–] Slayfire122 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I've heard people argue that militia means military, so only people who have been in the military should have guns. That's not even close to what a militia is or does.

0
1

[–] Possibly_a_Carrot 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Those people clearly need to look that up...because that isn't what the word "militia" means in any way.