PDA

View Full Version : Should the Carry of Guns be Allowed?



HornyPope
11-22-2004, 03:13 PM
I don't sleep at night knowing that millions of people on my continent own and carry weapons. Maybe if I share my opinion with someone, maybe then someone will care and take away their weapons. Only then I can sleep.

wheelchairman
11-22-2004, 03:15 PM
They offer pills for that now.

I follow the Black Panther line on this issue. Are you having fun belittling any form for discussion this board will have? Any form for education 15 year old punks will have from here to when they become paper-pushing deskmen?

HornyPope
11-22-2004, 03:31 PM
Wrong answer. To truely qualify as a participant of this debate you must invoke the second ammandement, interpret it in whichever way it fits you best, and then explain that this is your Government-granted right.

Moose
11-22-2004, 04:22 PM
its the second amendment right to bear arms. Now some people say that doesnt mean citiznes of the united states. well under that belief, you can then say that about a lot of things in the constitution and more of our rights will be restricted. seriously its cliche but true, guns dont kill people, people kill people and to blame anything else like music, tv, or guns for people's actions i find as an excuse and wrong. i have more reasons i could list, since i did a speech on why we should have the right to bear arms, with statistics and all that, but i dont feel like posting it all unless its necessary.

Kitten
11-22-2004, 05:01 PM
I don't sleep at night knowing that millions of people on my continent own and carry weapons. Maybe if I share my opinion with someone, maybe then someone will care and take away their weapons. Only then I can sleep.

True, we could just let the police and the criminals carry them.

Not Ozymandias
11-22-2004, 05:28 PM
Some people shouldn't be allowed. Like me. I'd get too cocky and talk too much shit and someone would end up dead.

UgLy_eLf
11-22-2004, 05:49 PM
You can carry around a gun with you here, they passed the law a little while back, take classes get a license, and register your gun, but what's the point? Can't go into any stores really "No guns" signs everywhere. So I guess you wander the streets with a piece, lookin for trouble.

SicN Twisted
11-22-2004, 07:42 PM
The second amendement does NOT guarentee people the right to bear arms.

Moose
11-22-2004, 07:44 PM
explain what you mean by that...a little more detail please.

SicN Twisted
11-22-2004, 07:48 PM
The supreme court has ruled several times that the second ammendment gives states the right to have militias. Only right wing idiots interpret it literally. Just because states have the right to organize separate military divisions in order to defederalize the country and not allow the national guard absolute power, doesn't mean idiots have the right to own personal guns.

Moose
11-22-2004, 07:54 PM
FIDEL CASTRO
"Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") (response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba)

second amendment:

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.

I could have sworn that meant the citizens, you know us...but i guess freedom of speech wasnt for everyone either, or anything else in the constitution...

SicN Twisted
11-22-2004, 07:56 PM
The right of the people to keep and bear arms means the right to have a militia. Not individual people to own guns. You might have your own interpretation, but the supreme court obviously disagrees with you and guess what, they interpret the constitution.

Moose
11-22-2004, 07:57 PM
show me the court cases...because then wouldnt the right to bear arms be banned for citizens if the supreme court said it isnt meant for us? last time i checked, people still own guns.

SicN Twisted
11-22-2004, 08:04 PM
They do, but they don't have the constitutional right to. The Supreme COurt determined that in US. vs. Miller, and again in US vs. Printz.

Moose
11-22-2004, 08:13 PM
U.S. v Miller does not ban the second amendment, i think the only thing it does is say exactly what a firearm is.

And U.S. vs. Prinz went over background checks i believe...I will say I did not read either to the fullest or with the most attention (football), but thats what I got out of it, maybe im missing something, but neither of them said it is illegal for citizens to bear arms.

SicN Twisted
11-22-2004, 10:32 PM
Are you an idiot? I never said it's illegal to bear arms, I simply said it's not the constitutional right of American citizens to own firearms. This interpretation (not banning) of the ammendment was established in these two cases amongst others.

Nobody ever banned the second ammendment, the ammendment simply doesn't mean what you think it is. All it does is give states the right to have a militia.