A question for the gun owners in the states.

NeoSneth said:

This is the part that the gun people ignore. 2nd amendment was written in a different time and for a different purpose. It's gets distorted like christians do with the bible.


but this is leading into a debate, which i really dont know how to address.

Click to expand...

Do you really think the second amendment was written so that individuals had no right to bear arms (of any kind whatsoever) outside of service in the militia?

You can just answer yes or no. I won't delve further. Promise.

Xander Crews said:

False. Militia is merely the example used in the preamble for the clause, but not the limitation for applying the amendment. The line of thinking in your argument has only held water for a brief moment in California, before the Supreme Court overturned it as horse shit.

Click to expand...

False. If sanity ever makes a comeback on this issue, that line of thinking will return. It's a poorly-written amendment, so it has unfortunately been misinterpreted by rednecks to mean all sorts of things that aren't even sort of implied in the text.

Neo Alec said:

False. If sanity ever makes a comeback on this issue, that line of thinking will return. It's a poorly-written amendment, so it has unfortunately been misinterpreted by rednecks to mean all sorts of things that aren't even sort of implied in the text.

Click to expand...

have you ever fired a weapon?

slingshot? quieter. no rifling. if too weak compound bow. hey if thats too hard just hire someone, use a knife or find an illegal gun. if its just for a murder why would you bother getting a gun legitimately its a bit of a hassle.

Neo Alec said:

False. If sanity ever makes a comeback on this issue, that line of thinking will return. It's a poorly-written amendment, so it has unfortunately been misinterpreted by rednecks to mean all sorts of things that aren't even sort of implied in the text.

Click to expand...

Has a toothless, hayseed hick from Motherfuck, Nowhere ever threatened you (or anybody?) with a gun before?

The fudds go out hunting in the woods, the gun-fags take their shit to the range to show off, and the mall ninjas pose with them online wearing tac suits & flak jackets even though they'd shit their pants in situations that require any of that shit.


So all that leaves you with (threat wise) are crazy white dudes who murder 5+ people and get nationwide coverage, and unhinged ghetto black dudes who murder and get murdered every minute in america with no coverage at all, and sometimes even cops get in on it and murder a few black dudes for target practice or whatever....

But you wouldn't have anything to say about cops killing people, because you're a status quo, pro establishment, bitchass tool...and god knows you wouldn't say shit about the rampant crime in black neighborhoods, because you're a pussy assed liberal fag with pre programmed cookie cutter "opinions" that aren't worth a fuck because you left the country first chance you got for some easy yellow snapper.

And for that I commend you...because if I was a sissy dork, 10 times outta 10 I would take a nice asian lady over a dumpy white pig as well....

But at the same time, ->SHUT THE FUCK UP<- about the stoopid "rednecks" and their guns. Fucking Koreaboo.

hahahaha

Karou said:

slingshot? quieter. no rifling. if too weak compound bow. hey if thats too hard just hire someone, use a knife or find an illegal gun. if its just for a murder why would you bother getting a gun legitimately its a bit of a hassle.

Click to expand...

A sling shot can be pretty brutal. Some of the big hunting ones are amazing. I had one I used for paintball for a good while. Seeing how you mentioned a compound bow, I'll throw out crossbow. Lots of fun there. I picked up one of these a while back. It's kind of a find a good spot and wait item though as it is huge and a bit heavy but still pretty fun.

http://kodabow.com/store/cw3/assets/product_expanded/big rhino - cocked expanded.jpg

FAT$TACKS said:

A sling shot can be pretty brutal. Some of the big hunting ones are amazing. I had one I used for paintball for a good while. Seeing how you mentioned a compound bow, I'll throw out crossbow. Lots of fun there. I picked up one of these a while back. It's kind of a find a good spot and wait item though as it is huge and a bit heavy but still pretty fun.

http://kodabow.com/store/cw3/assets/product_expanded/big rhino - cocked expanded.jpg

Click to expand...

guns are pretty loud so how are you going to get your victim to go out of hearshot of witnesses. yeah I had a slingshot as a kid and it tore up popcans way worse than a .22 or pellet rifle. as far as the bow being big remember we are talking about doing the killing they are not that hard to get around. Put it inside a suit holder or something?

Spoon makes me

Lagduf said:

Do you really think the second amendment was written so that individuals had no right to bear arms (of any kind whatsoever) outside of service in the militia?

You can just answer yes or no. I won't delve further. Promise.

Click to expand...

I believe it was intended to allow people to have guns in their home for other reasons than militia. Different time and place though. There was a frontier. There wasn't a telepgrah. I'm not advocating the removal of guns from households, but they do not serve the same purpose as 1789.

It's also why our presidential election system is a joke. Electoral College made sense when votes were tallied by hand, and transferred by horse. It's now one of the biggest jokes in the modern democratic world.


I don't know the answers, but people should be open to discussion on the topic.

NeoSneth said:

I believe it was intended to allow people to have guns in their home for other reasons than militia. Different time and place though. There was a frontier. There wasn't a telepgrah. I'm not abdicating the removal of guns from households, but they do not serve the same purpose as 1789.

It's also why our presidential election system is a joke. Electoral College made sense when votes were tallied by hand, and transferred by horse. It's now one of the biggest jokes in the modern democratic world.

Click to expand...

Obviously, police arrive at the locations of crimes before they happen, and people shouldn't ever need to have a gun to protect themselves.

On the topic of identifying cartridges left at crime scenes there is the "microstamping" technology which is, currently, theoretical - though all new handguns for sale in California must have this feature. Older firearms still on California's "Roster of not unsafe" handguns are still grandfathered in.

The idea is similar, of course, - where the firing pin or the chamber wall imprints an identifying serial number on a cartridge case as it is fired. Realistically this would only be effective on semi-automatic handguns, as they'll eject their spent casings.

The technology as it stands is flawed for numerous reasons. And then add in to the fact that there would simply be non-compliance with the law. If the mark came from a firing pin, a new (non micro-stamped pin) would be bought. If the mark came from the barrel, new barrels would be bought. Or the marking instruments could simply be filed off.

Did I mention that no commercial firearm manufacturer actually produces a gun with this technology? Given that no manufacturer produces such a gun and no manufacturer is, frankly, likely to do so I ask then, what is California's true intent in passing such a law?

Again, we see similar things on other fronts:

A couple weeks ago a madman shot up some people in San Diego using an AR-15 that was not in a configuration that was compliant with state law and he had thirty round magazines that he did not legally own prior to the year 2000 when CA instituted its 10 round magazine limit. These laws do not hamper criminals - they only adversely effect law abiding gun owners.

The accessibility of these weapons and accessories is so great that only a draconian ban enacted by congress that virtually eliminated gun ownership would get guns off the streets. You'd need everyone to turn in their guns. And it would take decades and decades and several generation who grew up without firearms before guns would go away. Did I mention such a law would be uncostitutional? Even repealing the 2nd amendment doesn't remove the right to keep and bear arms. You'd have to have an amendment stating there is no right to bear arms. Some how, I don't think that would fly.

Plus if they banned all firearms (somehow) we'd just do like they do in Australia: make quite elegant open bolt submachine guns using only hand tools (no lathe or welding required!) with parts purchased from Home Depot or Lowes.

And then there is the whole thing where Mexican cartels would start running guns in to the USA in absurd numbers in lieu of drugs. That'd be a cool black market.

Neo Alec said:

False. If sanity ever makes a comeback on this issue, that line of thinking will return. It's a poorly-written amendment, so it has unfortunately been misinterpreted by rednecks to mean all sorts of things that aren't even sort of implied in the text.

Click to expand...

See FIRST AMENDMENT.

I feel like there is some thought crime in this thread.

It's not just for shooting, but also for some good ol' pistol whipping.

I just want to add that Spoon is an excellent member

Kiel said:

I just want to add that Spoon is an excellent member

Click to expand...

Seconded.

Lagduf said:

Do you really think the second amendment was written so that individuals had no right to bear arms (of any kind whatsoever) outside of service in the militia?

You can just answer yes or no. I won't delve further. Promise.

Click to expand...

The second amendment does have roots in a preference for Militias over Standing Armies (Particularly in a time of peace).
The idea that an armed citizenry is necessary to to the rise to the occasion.

How that information affects current policy is a matter of debate.

Lagduf said:

We have cases on the 2A waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting to get up the judicial chain to eventually get to SCOTUS where only the most intellectually dishonest justice would vote in favor of California's absurd interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms..

Click to expand...

We already know how Scalia Will Vote on this one.

Lagduf said:

Again, we see similar things on other fronts:

A couple weeks ago a madman shot up some people in San Diego using an AR-15 that was not in a configuration that was compliant with state law and he had thirty round magazines that he did not legally own prior to the year 2000 when CA instituted its 10 round magazine limit. These laws do not hamper criminals - they only adversely effect law abiding gun owners.

Click to expand...

Where did they get it from? Another state?

A national law WOULD hamper criminals. It might take 10 years but we know this much.

Lagduf said:

Here is some thought crime for you.

Click to expand...

if you're ever my secret santa, you know what to buy me.

I just want to point out that Spoon is not only being a racist troll in his last post, but he is assuming for some reason that I like cops, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Apparently this is the kind of place where this kind of behavior is commended. Let's take a step back and think about that. Or not.

norton9478 said:

Where did they get it from? Another state?

Click to expand...

I think he actually built the receiver up from an 80% "blank" meaning he bought an almost completed receiver that he just had to mill out the fire control pocket in order for it to meet the legal definition of a firearm. So it probably had no serial number either, since no serial number is required when you build your own gun.

The rest of the parts to make the gun aren't regulated. Honestly that's why ARs are so popular. You can buy the "firearm" part for $100 and then order the rest of the shit on the internet.

In CA magazines can be gotten anywhere - probably bought them disassembled on the internet or at a CA gun store. It is not illegal to possess all the parts to manufacture a magazine with a capacity > 10 rounds in CA.

A national law WOULD hamper criminals. It might take 10 years but we know this much.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. It would take a STRONG law, however, in order to do this. Do we want to resort to that - and would it even be constitutional?

norton9478 said:

The second amendment does have roots in a preference for Militias over Standing Armies (Particularly in a time of peace).
The idea that an armed citizenry is necessary to to the rise to the occasion.

How that information affects current policy is a matter of debate.

Click to expand...

Oh standing armies, how much fun they are.

Neo Alec said:

I just want to point out that Spoon is not only being a racist troll in his last post, but he is assuming for some reason that I like cops, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Apparently this is the kind of place where this kind of behavior is commended. Let's take a step back and think about that. Or not.

Click to expand...

Sit down, Have a stummy.

Neo Alec said:

I just want to point out that Spoon is not only being a racist troll in his last post, but he is assuming for some reason that I like cops, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Apparently this is the kind of place where this kind of behavior is commended. Let's take a step back and think about that. Or not.

Click to expand...

Yeah lets not, fag.


God bless Murka.