You're talking about accidents.

Way more car accidents cause there are way more cars, and they are used a lot.

guns are around in much less numbers, and are used way less, but lets face it, more guns are used in malicious acts than accidents. It's completely the other way around for cars, where accidents easily outnumber malicious uses for cars to kill people.

Either way, it's people killing people. When someone want to easily kill another person they tend to use a gun, not a car...

 

those people aren't Christians.

 

Fair enough about retards/unstables, but who is the government to decide how many guns a person needs to have? I also never mentioned anything about an AK in the trunk. That to me would be irresponsible. What if someone broke into my trunk and made off with my gun?

And yes, opencarry.org is an "agenda driven" website, but what website is NOT "agenda driven" in some way? I-Club is "agenda driven" toward advancing the Subaru culture, after all.

All I can really say is, to blame guns for people dying is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat. Look at Japan. They ban guns, and people still die by them (although not as many), and when someone without access to a gun wants to kill people, they drive into a crowd with their car and start slashing with a big knife! (In case you didn't know, just that happened a few months ago).

 

The 2nd Amendment reads: 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.

Nowhere does it qualify the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" with necessity. It does not say that the people shall only be allowed to keep and bear necessary arms, a certain number of arms, or any other ridiculousness.

By saying that a necessity clause should be read into the 2nd amendment is to say that such a clause should be read into all of the fundamental rights. What if only "necessary" speech was free? What if you were only granted a jury trial in a criminal case if the government deemed it necessary? What if cruel and unusual punishments were allowed, if necessary?

The problem with such a clause is that the ones who enforce the violations are also the ones who define necessity. It can be as narrow or as broad as they deem fit. Do you really want to live in a society where the government can unilaterally change the scope of your freedom on a whim? I sure as hell don't.

Again, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to preserve your right to self defense. It has nothing to do with fighting off burglars or would-be murderers. It has everything to do with ensuring the "security of a free state." The security of a free State is more than the security of that state's government. It's the security of the people who consent to be governed. It's their security against crime, and their security against the government itself.

As some have said, the Second Amendment should have been the First Amendment. It is upon the right to keep and bear arms that all our other rights depend. A right that we're not able or allowed to defend is no right at all.

The right to bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic. - Justice Story, Commentaries (1833)
________
Fix ps3

 

If someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way. Take away their gun, and they will use a knife. Take away the knife, and they'll use a bat. Take away the bat, and they'll strangle you. Guns are tools, just like any other tool. You cannot impute malice or evil to an inanimate object - you need to look at the user of said object.

Criminals who want guns will get them, law or no law. They don't care about regulations, background checks, or any other law. They aren't called criminals because they're law-abiding. By definition, the only people affected by laws are those of us who are law-abiding. Why should the rights of the law-abiding citizenry be infringed upon simply because of a few bad apples? If the scope of our freedoms were based upon the hypothetical actions of criminals and conjectures of the retarded/insane/stupid, we'd have no rights at all.
________
Sonic

 

They sure say they are...

much like how many muslims say those insurgents aren't muslims either, but aren't we just so quick to ignore that...

 

I agree. It doesn't. I'm saying out of my own opinion and question as to the necessity of such things. I'm all for owning arms, and using arms, but don't see the point in the public having certain arms.

Like, could we buy bombs and grenades then? Define an "Arm"....

Free speech isn't free. It's a ****ing joke. You can't march or protest if you want or anywhere you want. You can't assmble anywhere you want. It's very evident now that the time may come when you couldn't practice the faith you may want. You can't just say whatever you want either cause other people have the right to not hear it apparently... I mean otherwise we'd have people yelling and screaming and playing loud music whenever they wanted... there are restrictions to all of these today, so to pose your question as an "what if" doesn't really work. It's already this way.


I think of worse, like you're a citizen and you go to Guantanamo bay for about 3 years and aren't even charged with anything...


Ever heard of water boarding? Was in the news not too long ago.


Agreed. So we want to have auto weapons and hard bullets why? so we can take on tanks and soldiers if we have to. Makes sense, except that I doubt many Americans would know how to fire a gun properly and with good aim, clean and maintain that firearm and also know more military strategy than a government trained army. So guns are only really good enough to help us defend ourselves since we definitely failed to train and uphold the militia.

Well, our forefathers were smarter than we are, that's why it's the 2nd amendment, and also important, but not as much as the freedoms in that 1st amendment...