News New security measures

[Hakunamatata]

Do you need an assault rifle for protection?

Yes.

 

[photomatt]

I'm no constitutional scholar but the founding fathers allowed for the second amendment not so much out of a self defense against crime but as a self defense against a tyrannical government, which I would argue is as just as important today as it was when the country was formed.

Here is the text of the 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."

Please explain to me how private ownership of any "arm" is a part of a well-regulated militia in 2016.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Yes and?

 

[PhotoDave219]

Do you need an assault rifle for protection?

Assault rifle? Hell, i dont even use a condom, what would i need a gun for?

 

[photomatt]

Yes.

Protection from what? How many feral pigs and coyotes live in your neighborhood? Why can't you all just get along?

 

[photomatt]

Then we can have the annual argument that we have every time this happens. It solves nothing, and the people that can solve the issues don't seem too keen on doing so, but what the hell. Have at it.

How do we change this?

 

[Hakunamatata]

Protection from what? How many feral pigs and coyotes live in your neighborhood? Why can't you all just get along?

Tyrannical government.

 

[flynnibus]

I definitely don't think it's outrageous to suggest that assault riffles be banned for civilian use, however. Of course, if motivated enough, someone will get one, but you've gotta start somewhere. A line needs to be drawn.

Agreed - people can still create explosives, that hasn't stopped us from regulating them even tho the law doesn't eliminate the existence of explosives in the world. And I don't hear the call for overturning the bans on different explosives because 'we need to defend ourselves!'

Its a shame that most people today are blind to the influence the NRA and lobbying has had on public policy and interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Here is an interesting read on the topic for those interested... http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856?o=0 with the biggest takeaway being it wasn't till the DC case that in 200+ years the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment was for self-defense. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

The big keystone of today's gun control arguments over right to self-defense with guns being constitutionally protected wasn't even supreme court precedent until the last 10 years and wasn't even a point of heavy contention until the NRA went full bore 'anti-gun control' in the 70s. Where as in decades prior they had been amenable to gun control legislation they felt met their standards.

 

[photomatt]

Assault rifle? Hell, i dont even use a condom, what would i need a gun for?

"This is my gun, this is my rifle..."

The condom goes on your gun.

 

[photomatt]

Tyrannical government.

Don't you think they have more guns?

 

[invader]

Tyrannical government.

But but but but they have bigger and more deadly weapons than you, you should just take it. The NRA has you brainwashed. No reason in fighting for your rights!!!

 

[Hakunamatata]

Don't you think they have more guns?

Don't care.

 

[photomatt]

That's fine. You have your reasons. We have ours.

Yes, but are our reasons valid?

 

[Quinnmac000]

Don't you think they have more guns?

Mind you if this did happen and the government did win...guns would be worthless against drones, A-10s, f-22 and all the other things the government owns. You all would be in the place of the same M.E terrorists that are being condemned.

 

[flynnibus]

Mind you if this did happen and the government did win...guns would be worthless against drones, A-10s, f-22 and all the other things the government owns. You all would be in the place of the same M.E terrorists that are being condemned.

Or as Jim Jefferies put it... 'You're bringing a gun to a drone fight!' hehe

 

[BrerJon]

Don't you think they have more guns?

You can imagine some mythical tyrannical government, that took power without being elected (erm how would that work exactly?), breaking into everyone's homes but don't worry, this guy's got a gun so he can defend himself and they'll run away! Or he'll kill a few and then ten minutes later more soldiers will arrive and shoot the defender of freedom down too.

I think some people watch way too many movies than is good for them.

 

[photomatt]

And if law abiding citizens were legally able to own nukes they would use them legally. Why? Because law abiding citizens obey the law.

How would a law abiding citizen legally use a nuke? Those must be some really big feral hogs.

 

[Hakunamatata]

You can imagine some mythical tyrannical government, that took power without being elected (erm how would that work exactly), breaking into everyone's homes but don't worry, this guy's got a gun so he can defend himself! For about ten minutes until the other soldiers arrive and shoot him too.

I think some people watch too many movies.

i agree. You should read more history.

 

[Andrew C]

You can imagine some mythical tyrannical government, that took power without being elected (erm how would that work exactly?), breaking into everyone's homes but don't worry, this guy's got a gun so he can defend himself and they'll run away! Or he'll kill a few and then ten minutes later more soldiers will arrive and shoot the defender of fredom down too.

I think some people watch too many movies.

Mythical??? Are you serious?

Throughout history, every time a government has disarmed their citizens, it ended badly for the citizens. This is one of the main reasons we were given a second amendment.

 

[Hakunamatata]

How would a law abiding citizen legally use a nuke? Those must be some really big feral hogs.

My point is, for now, in this country, you don't have to have a reason if it's legal. So if I want to own a legal weapon I don't have to give you any reason at all.