This is why we have the 2nd Amendment

Yo dawg, I heard you like guns, so we put bullets in your chest so you can die while you bleed.
 
I must be blind. It looked like he was doing a ninja roll at first

DAMNIT AZNER
 
what part of the second amendment covers:

"Homeowner shoots back at M-16/AR-15 wielding robbers"

here's the second amendment, please point out the exact part of the phrase that says this:

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.


in fact just the opposite is true: people like you have so ****ing warped the meaning of the 2nd amendment that it allows "robbers" to purchase AR-15s. GJ!
 
I wonder what part of people shooting at each other and getting killed is supposed to make me believe in the right to bear arms?
 
i think we need less guns in the wrong hands and more guns in the right hands. if we could accomplish this with better screening then it'd be a better world.
 
the second video involves a security guard. Apparently they were tipped off that there was going to be a robbery. What moron goes around telling people he's going to rob a store? Not to say he wasn't a moron in the first place.

i think we need less guns in the wrong hands and more guns in the right hands. if we could accomplish this with better screening then it'd be a better world.

There's a very big flaw in that logic.
 
Constitustern said:
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.
Can has grammar? "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is the justification for the right of the people to bear arms, and doesn't constitute a requirement that those people must be organised into a militia.
 
Can has grammar? "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is the justification for the right of the people to bear arms, and doesn't constitute a requirement that those people must be organised into a militia.

the point is that it doesnt say:

"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. also we need proteshun from the bad guys so help us god, amen"
 
Even if we make guns illegal, it doesn't mean that people won't still get them. Cocaine is illegal, and yet people are still addicted. Why take guns away from law abiding citizens if there are still going to be assholes like those in the videos?
 
Even if we make guns illegal, it doesn't mean that people won't still get them. Cocaine is illegal, and yet people are still addicted. Why take guns away from law abiding citizens if there are still going to be assholes like those in the videos?

We probably would be a lot more capable of actual gun control if we didn't already have more privately-owned guns than people in this country.
 
what part of the second amendment covers:

"Homeowner shoots back at M-16/AR-15 wielding robbers"

here's the second amendment, please point out the exact part of the phrase that says this:

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.


in fact just the opposite is true: people like you have so ****ing warped the meaning of the 2nd amendment that it allows "robbers" to purchase AR-15s. GJ!

Stern: He knows your country's constitution better than you do.

Yes he does. No, really, he does. You have no ****ing clue.
 
what part of the second amendment covers:

"Homeowner shoots back at M-16/AR-15 wielding robbers"

here's the second amendment, please point out the exact part of the phrase that says this:

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.


in fact just the opposite is true: people like you have so ****ing warped the meaning of the 2nd amendment that it allows "robbers" to purchase AR-15s. GJ!


do you really think the rifles were purchased legally?
 
Well if the whole point is to keep the government from gaining ultimate power shouldn't these militias also get fighter jets and nuclear submarines? Cuz otherwise really we're just fooling ourselves. That's why the guys from Saudi Arabia had to steal planes. You think they didn't have guns? The current system really only invites problems without accomplishing much of anything.
 
in fact just the opposite is true: people like you have so ****ing warped the meaning of the 2nd amendment that it allows "robbers" to purchase AR-15s. GJ!

Does the 2nd amendment allow robbers to rob people with said guns? No. That's incredibly faulty logic.

Does removing the 2nd amendment prevent robbers from robbing people with said guns? No.

You can't bring the effect of law into one part and leave it out in another. You're using law to explain why the robber was able to get a gun, yet suddenly laws become irrelevant when it comes to robbing part.

In what way do you expect laws preventing gun ownership to be more effective than the laws that prevent crimes you can commit with guns?

We probably would be a lot more capable of actual gun control if we didn't already have more privately-owned guns than people in this country.
Gotta agree with this, though. And your other post Ennui.

I really don't care enough to form a solid position on either side of this debate, but I feel like getting my opinion on this logic out there so that someone can pick me apart.
 
Has anyone ever found any statistics of the number of crimes prevented by the use of guns? Every time this debate comes up, I ask this question and get ignored.
 
Back
Top