Out of curiosity, how many people on both sides of this issue would support modifying the 2nd amendment?

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:16 PM. Reason : (^ and the "from my government" part, but whatever, Tree's a troll)]

8/9/2006 5:15:55 PM

i don't think it would be necessary, since federal laws limiting gun ownership have passed muster for a while now.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:17 PM. Reason : wording]

8/9/2006 5:16:51 PM

ok heres what i think

i think people should be able to own guns

so how does that differ with what the second amendment says

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:18 PM. Reason : if people still own guns to this very day why do the gun people think they are getting taken away?]

8/9/2006 5:17:25 PM

It doesn't differ fundamentally with what it says. I don't think there's much of a case to make against that.

Where it differs fundamentally is intention. The dispute is usually over whether or not you'd have to join a militia as a citizen to get a gun, and what selection of weapons you can legally purchase and at what ages. The framers were ambiguous about trigger locks and waiting periods, you understand.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:25 PM. Reason : ...]

8/9/2006 5:17:32 PM

sure why not

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:18 PM. Reason : just for clarification one way or the other]

8/9/2006 5:17:40 PM

i'm a troll because i don't want people fucking with the bill of rights

Gamecat...what effect would modifying the 2nd amendment have on criminals and the way they get guns? minimal or none i would guess

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2006 5:18:49 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: the trolling in this thread is unbelivable "how are guns supposed to protect me?""

8/9/2006 5:22:38 PM

Gamecat...what effect would modifying the 2nd amendment have on criminals and the way they get guns? minimal or none i would guess

8/9/2006 5:24:11 PM

Quote :

"Ok, four death's in a 24 hour period, "

that made the news that matched my keyword search that i could find in three minutes

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:25 PM. Reason : yutuy]

8/9/2006 5:25:36 PM

Well it also says that every able bodied male is part of the militia and we then have later historical examples of whats a mob and whats an organized militia

8/9/2006 5:26:24 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: what effect would modifying the 2nd amendment have on criminals and the way they get guns? minimal or none i would guess"

...


wouldn't that depend on how you modified it?

::sigh::

8/9/2006 5:28:52 PM

no i dont think so because criminals dont care about gun laws in the first place

::sigh::

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ::sigh::]

8/9/2006 5:36:34 PM

Those guns are on the street because at one point they were legally owned and purchased. If people have to start importating black market guns the number of guns on the street will drop.

8/9/2006 5:37:45 PM

BUT THEN ONLY THE MOST DANGEROUS CRIMINALS WILL HAVE THEM....except that they already do

8/9/2006 5:38:59 PM

how many tens of thousands of guns would you have to get off the street before criminals would importate new guns

8/9/2006 5:39:19 PM

OMG SINCE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN OVER NIGHT ITS POINTLESS

?

8/9/2006 5:39:46 PM

Even if you successfully argue for laws that "ban" hand-guns, what do you think the real affect of this law is going to be?

Much like drug laws, the people that want to shoot someone else are still going to find hand-guns (or whatever else) to do it with.

Then you have the accidental deaths.

Let's address the four links provided by Josh#s.

The first and fourth link are actually exactly the same, so you must have mislinked the first one. The man was cleaning his gun and accidently shot himself. This exact same thing can still happen with rifles, or other type of non-handgun weapon the man may own. This same person could still have easily purchased a handgun on the black market with a ban on handguns in place. How many laws do you want in place to protect people from their own stupidity?

The second link was an individual 'playing' with a gun who ended up shooting someone else. Again, the exact same thing can still happen with a rifle, or other type of non-handgun weapon. The same person could still have easily purchased a handgun on the black market with a ban on handguns in place. How many laws do you want in place to protect people from their own stupidity?

The third link was an unexplained accident where a 13 year old shot himself in the head with a shotgun. In this incident, it wasn't even a handgun in the first place. The boy's parents could have easily purchased a weapon on the black market even if laws were passed banning all guns and rifles. The boy's parents still would have been as equally irresponsible in allowing the boy to have access to the weapon in the first place. If you want to create laws to protect the children of irresponsible parents from guns, then make sure these parents goto jail for life. However, even if these parents didn't own a shotgun, they probably would have found some other way to irresponsibly let their son kill himself in an 'accident'.

So, for serial, what exactly do you think a ban on handguns is going to accomplish? A reduction in accidental shooting deaths? A reduction in violent crimes?

Accidental shooting deaths are still going to happen - possibly less, but in most cases these accidental deaths are inflicted on the people who are being irresponsible. Why do you feel the need to protect them from themselves?

Violent crimes will probably stay the same or rise after such a ban. This would just yet again increase the drug and gun related black market crime we already see from drug laws.

8/9/2006 5:41:06 PM

nm

8/9/2006 5:41:19 PM

a/s/l

bwn?

8/9/2006 5:43:28 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: no i dont think so because criminals dont care about gun laws in the first place"

Great. How about this half of your question?

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: what effect would modifying the 2nd amendment have on criminals and the way they get guns?"

Are you really going to suggest that modifying the 2nd amendment couldn't have any effect on the way criminals get guns?

8/9/2006 5:43:56 PM

why are non criminal gun owners always worried about losing their guns

i just can not comprehend that one

8/9/2006 5:44:51 PM

^^my point is that criminals dont get guns by filing for a permit at a sherriff's office...waiting until they are approved...passing criminal background checks...ie following the laws

they go pay cash for a stolen gun most likely

i dont know why this is so difficult

CHANGING LAWS affects people who FOLLOW LAWS not people who DISREGARD LAWS in the first place

^because we know that criminals have guns and want to protect ourselves obviously

8/9/2006 5:45:51 PM

i mean long as they can still hunt and own guns i dont see why they always complain about losing their guns when they obviously wont lose their guns

8/9/2006 5:48:26 PM

i'm not really worried about losing guns

i'm more trying to rationalize to some of the people who are for taking away gun ownership rights how it will not prevent crime

8/9/2006 5:49:04 PM

So, by creating this law you believe that there will be less hand-guns on the streets.

If handguns sales are outlawed, then things have to come in through the black market. Much like laws to limit drug usage, you do see an overall decline in the number of users and the amount of drugs out there. However, the problems created by the remaining black market can be worse than the problems you had before.

Do you really think that drug dealers that already own handguns aren't going to find a way to get them after they are illegal?

Or would your ban on handguns actually cause these people to get more lethal guns, since now it is just as easy to get an automatic weapon as it is a simple handgun?

8/9/2006 5:50:08 PM

Quote :

"CHANGING LAWS affects people who FOLLOW LAWS not people who DISREGARD LAWS in the first place"

this is the most retarded thing ive read all week

8/9/2006 5:51:40 PM

you're way beyond retarded if you can't understand something that simple

here let me give you an even SIMPLER analogy (even though you're obviously just trolling)

A MAN ALWAYS DRIVES 80 MILES PER HOUR

THE GOVT LOWERS THE SPEED LIMIT ON A HIGHWAY FROM 65 TO 55 MPH

THE MAN STILL DRIVES 80 MILES PER HOUR

THE LAW DIDNT AFFECT HIM

8/9/2006 5:53:06 PM

he gets pulled over for speeding and learns he doesnt want to pay out the ass on his insurance

do you get it now?

no...of course you dont

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:55 PM. Reason : 234 ]

8/9/2006 5:55:07 PM

please explain to me how banning handguns is going to prevent criminals from getting handguns? are the criminals going to realize they dont want to pay out the ass for handgun insurance? fucking idiot

8/9/2006 5:56:32 PM

Another thing,

As someone arguing the anti-gun position right now pointed out, many handguns used in crimes are gotten through legal channels. Many times after a crime has occured, if the gun can be found the criminal can be found. Legal channels have paper-work and people to follow-through on.

Criminals will continue to get handguns to use for crimes in the black market just like they do now. The difference is, currently those guns usually came originally from tracable sources. If you outlaw gun sales they won't be as easily traced, if at all.

8/9/2006 5:57:19 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: my point is that criminals dont get guns by filing for a permit at a sherriff's office...waiting until they are approved...passing criminal background checks...ie following the laws they go pay cash for a stolen gun most likely i dont know why this is so difficult CHANGING LAWS affects people who FOLLOW LAWS not people who DISREGARD LAWS in the first place"

And my point is that the answer you posted before, just like the one you've posted above, only answers half the question.

Modifying the Constitution doesn't modify the people it protects.

I never argued that it would.

Stop arguing with the strawman.

Modifying the Constitution does, however, modify the mechanisms of our society through which the majority of social and economic interaction take place, which can--and I'd argue it's impossible to argue that they could not--modify IN SIGNIFICANT WAYS the methods by which criminals gain access to guns, irrespective of the degree of their underlying respect for the law.

Example:

1968 Marijuana is ruled legal via Supreme Court decision.

1970 Marijuana is declared illegal by the executive branch.

2006 Marijuana is and continues to be illegal.

A criminal in 1967 would have to "know a criminal" in order to purchase marijuana in the United States. A criminal in 1969 would only have to know where to find a shop that carried it. A criminal in 1971 would have to "know a criminal" in order to purchase marijuana. A criminal today would have to "know a criminal," or have cancer in order to purchase marijuana.

The differences in how one would obtain marijuana as a result of changes in statute should be self-evident.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:58 PM. Reason : twista]

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ...]

8/9/2006 5:57:25 PM

criminals dont exist. normal peope with stupid ideas exist.

8/9/2006 5:57:29 PM

Quote :

"Those guns are on the street because at one point they were legally owned and purchased."

8/9/2006 5:57:36 PM

cept now he's easier to spot because he's going significantly faster than the law-abiding public.

cept now he's more likely to get pulled over because of the above.

cept now when he does get pulled over he'll be less likely to get out of a ticket and/or have to pay a larger fine.

cept many people who may have gone 80 might now go 70.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:59 PM. Reason : for Treetwisters speeding analogy, gd posts]

8/9/2006 5:58:52 PM

^^ no they were made in ghetto sweatshops

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:59 PM. Reason : w34]

8/9/2006 5:58:54 PM

crime does exist in the world outside of TWW, fyi

8/9/2006 6:00:21 PM

Quote :

"Those guns are on the street because at one point they were legally owned and purchased."

So, are drugs on the street because at one point they were legally owned and purchased?

Why are guns going to magically go away (even if you reply that it will take 'years') when you make it illegal to purchase them?

8/9/2006 6:00:47 PM

If the government would let me own a gun id kill as many pro-gun nuts as possible.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 6:01 PM. Reason : 234]

8/9/2006 6:01:10 PM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BATTLE_OF_ATHENS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

8/9/2006 6:01:11 PM

Quote :

"So, are drugs on the street because at one point they were legally owned and purchased?"

8/9/2006 6:01:31 PM

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2006 6:01:34 PM

Can you grow a handgun plant in your closet?

ohsnappwnt

8/9/2006 6:02:21 PM

no, you cook it w/ baking soda + nutmeg

8/9/2006 6:02:42 PM

something grown and something mechanical arent really comparable in the ways you did. drugs like crystal meth are made in ghetto sweatshops.

8/9/2006 6:03:06 PM

Are most drugs grown in people's closet? Or are they brought from outside the country?

8/9/2006 6:03:40 PM

people will start smuggling guns in....they will swallow ballons full of firearms

just you see

8/9/2006 6:04:30 PM

id imagine guns to be easier to find than drugs. thats a guess though.

8/9/2006 6:04:36 PM

i hope none of the "anti-gun" people in this thread ever try to complain about someone modifying one of their consitutional rights

also

ALL GUNS ARE MADE IN THE USA, NONE ARE IMPORTED, LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY

8/9/2006 6:04:54 PM

Quote :

"Are most drugs grown in people's closet? Or are they brought from outside the country?"

most are on the street because at one point they were legally purchased

if you could not legally purchase hand guns and had to acquire them through some black market smugglers it would drastically reduce the number of handguns.

8/9/2006 6:05:42 PM

MOST GUNS ARENT

8/9/2006 6:05:53 PM