Amendment II

[rabidbadger]

Amendment II

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.

discuss.

[rabidbadger]

OK, I'll start. It is about militias. regulated militias. People with weapons need to be "well regulated" the idea being that localities can call upon folks with weapons to protect their municipalities.

[Patch]

I believe the second amendment is very important, even to this day. I know many argue that it was instated right after a long war, and that it was needed then, and isn't needed now, but I disagree. I believe that more people need to exercise their right to bear arms to help keep the government in check. You can have a room full of kings and emperors, but the one in charge is the man with the gun.

I live in Washington state. Back in the 60s or 70s we adopted an unconstitutional law that California instated making it illegal to open carry anything that could be considered a weapon. It bloody sucks. What it does is forces you to get a license to carry a concealed weapon. Some people can't get concealed weapon license, so they are denied their constitutional right to bear arms in my state.

Anyways... Back to Mass Effect.

[Patch]

Originally Posted by rabidbadger

OK, I'll start. It is about militias. regulated militias. People with weapons need to be "well regulated" the idea being that localities can call upon folks with weapons to protect their municipalities.

The first part is about malitias. The second part states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". People, not an entity known as a malitia.

[rabidbadger]

it's one sentence dude, just an odd syntax in this day and age. but I agree, it does definitely say we can have armaments.

[phatlip12]

I support the right to bare arms. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I see nothing wrong with a person keeping a gun in their home giving they follow the proper safety percussions. On the other hand, I oppose a person having the authority to go out in public with a deadly weapon. The odds of ever having to use it to begin with are so slim the fact that you're carrying around such a deadly weapon seems...excessive to say the least. Kind of like walking around in a rubber suite because you're afraid of getting struck by lightening but only the rubber suite is capable of killing someone (don't take that example too seriously, but you get my point). There are other means of protecting yourself. In the unlikely event that you'll ever need to pull out the gun a non-lethal weapon should work just as fine. Why not carry around a taser or pepper spray as opposed to a deadly firearm?

The only scenario where I can see the use of a conceal and carry permitted being justified is in extreme cases. Such as being put in the witness protection plan due to a threat of being murdered by a killer at large for example.

[Patch]

Originally Posted by phatlip12

The odds of ever having to use it to begin with are so slim the fact that you're carrying around such a deadly weapon seems...excessive to say the least.

I was shot at once. I wish I had a gun to even out the situation. I didn't tho.

I rather have one and not have to use it, than have to use one and not have one.

[comhcinc]

Originally Posted by rabidbadger

it's one sentence dude, just an odd syntax in this day and age. but I agree, it does definitely say we can have armaments.

yep and of course by "we" it means well regulated militias i.e. police and the national guard. it doens't mention what type arms ( hand guns, rifles, rpgs) or just how they can be "beared" (concealed, loaded). this was left up in the air.

now before i give my opinion, i got a couple of questions for the pro gun people?

do you think people should be allowed to carried concealed weapons?

( i think that is a bad idea all around. i think if we allow people to carry guns it should be against the law to conceal them. if you have a weapon everyone should be able to cearly see it. it just makes more sense to me. seems it "detour crime".)


a lot of people want to "bear arms to help keep the government in check" well nothing you can buy in this country can stop a M1-A2 main battle tank (i am not even going to talk about jets). so do you think people should be able to buy advanced weapony? should i be able to buy a tank if i could afford one ( i can't)? [i won't go silly on you and want to buy a nuke]


should there be an age limit on who can "bear" a weapon?

please give me your thoughfil answer on these questions, thanks and i might have more


*my two cents*
i don't like hand guns and think they should be illegal. nor do i like concealed weapons but i have already talked about that. i have no problem with semi automatic rifles and shotguns, but i really don't like the idea of people carrying them everywhere.

[phatlip12]

Originally Posted by Patch

I was shot at once. I wish I had a gun to even out the situation. I didn't tho.

I rather have one and not have to use it, than have to use one and not have one.

Describe the situation some more, how and why where you shot at? Where at?

Still doesn't change the fact that it's unlikely to happen. Again I ask why not go with a non lethal approach such as a taser? Cops are more likely to be put in deadly situations such as this more then anyone else (which is why they carry guns) however, many of them resort to using a taser rather then a gun when in potentially dangerous situations. If it works for them why not for you whom is a hell of a less likely to ever have to use it?

[crumbles]

Originally Posted by phatlip12

...I oppose a person having the authority to go out in public with a deadly weapon. The odds of ever having to use it to begin with are so slim the fact that you're carrying around such a deadly weapon seems...excessive to say the least.

Right. Then don't wear your seatbelt. That seems too excessive to strap yourself in to protect yourself. What are the odds, right? Besides, you don't seem to remember older arguments very much. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Justice, your lifetime odds of being a victim of violent crime are 1 out of 2. Yes, it’s a flip of the coin as to whether you’ll be the victim of violent crime at some point in your life. But hey, it's only a 50% chance, right? What are the odds! This argument has been done before. It obviously went no where as the same people are spouting off the same stupid, bullshit, and tired arguments. The same people who consider others "uninformed."

http://revision3.com/forum/showpost....4&postcount=52