Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#820 - pawntrawn
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
>"The 2nd amendment is outdated because it was made 200 years ago when muskets couldn't hurt anyone"
>Not knowing why the 2nd amendment was made
It's the same as why they made the 3rd amendment: The British forced people to give up their guns prior to the Revolutionary War, so the writers of the Bill of Rights tried to make a way for that not to happen again.

>"But the Americans only had one-shot muskets back then"
Well so did the British army, so they were about even in firepower.
Nowadays citizens have semi-automatic and automatic weapons, as does the military, although the military does have better training.

TL;DR: 2nd amendment was made to hinder, if not stop, a dictator from imposing military control over the nation. It wasn't made just so people could show off their arsenals.

Solution? Don't take away everyone's guns, just regulate the process of how to get a gun so people like those media-attracting shooters don't get any.

>"Drugs are illegal but people still get them"
So we should just do nothing and let them be with no regulations then? No.

P.S. The NRA and most super-liberals are ******* stupid.
#825 to #820 - anon id: 6ca00978
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
200 years ago the americans didn't have a regulated army or a great war economy
the amendent mentions a militia .
its basicly so the brits couldn't take away their armies guns .

what is stopping me from getting a main battle tank ? gotta even out the playing field.

america has a big enough army to fend for itself now .
#859 to #825 - teufelshunde
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
No, just no. No no no.

"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."

A militia defines two things. Either an armed citizenry, or the national guard. Yes, the Americans DID have a regulated army back then. No, it doesn't say that the British couldn't confiscate their firearms, that has nothing to do with it. Look closer..
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The People are the citizens of the United States. A tank is a vehicle, not a firearm. The 2A applies to firearms. Does this entitle us to modern day M177 Howitzers? No. But it does entitle us to an AR15 if we want one.
User avatar #838 to #825 - pawntrawn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
The first half of the 2nd amendment does not necessarily pertain to a federal militia, it more of states rules about state militias. Each state is allowed to create and maintain their own militia, which is what the national guard is sort of like.

>america has a big enough army to fend for itself now .
You're misunderstanding, the second amendment wasn't written only for foreign invasions, it was so that the American government could not turn on its citizens and create a totalitarian regime like the monarchy England had in place by taking away their arms.
#846 to #838 - itsbendingtime
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
>totalitarian regime
>like in England
>implying the UK wasn't, and still is, a constitutional monarchy with an elected Parliament
User avatar #849 to #846 - pawntrawn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
>Monarch with parliament
>Dictator with supporters
You know what I mean.
#867 to #849 - itsbendingtime
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
>implying the Queen is a dictator
User avatar #828 to #825 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
The colonists didn't have an army until AFTER the British came for the guns. When that happened, the militia were a group of citizens who got together to form an ad hoc army.

The amendment is meant to assure that this scenario can happen again if needed. It is supposed to protect against ALL governments, both foreign and domestic.

You should get a battle tank if you want one. Anyone who could buy one isn't going to be robbing 7-11 or murdering people.
#824 to #820 - anon id: 54de9938
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
No, you should tax and control drugs the same way you do guns. Then when most of the illegal guns and drugs are gone because they're simply not profitable anymore, you send the cops after the people that still sell illegally for "off-the-radar" type reasons.

Simple, right?
User avatar #842 to #824 - pawntrawn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Drug licenses? That seems a bit stretching it.
It's not the guns that are expensive necessarily, it's the licenses needed to own them.
If someone wanted to buy a machine gun illegally, they would still buy it off a black market, not because it's cheaper, but because they don't need to receive a license to purchase it.