is having a gun a right?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] No, but that doesn't mean that is required for life.thegerg

Your example is stupid, it's a basic necessity if you don't have alternative options, a gun isn't.

If you really believe you don't need a car, then you do live in your own little world.

What about everybody else? i.e. 95% of people?Even if they can, people do need cars orvehiclesto go places, and it's a barenecessity.

like I said, I think you live in your own little world if you don't believe a car is a necessity.

My guns have made my life easier in the past and have proven legitimate benefit, they can be used to aid and protect life. You seem to be confused.thegerg

My guns have not eased my day-to-day life and have proven to be nothing but a money-consuming and frivolous - albeit fun - hobby. Unless you cannot afford to go shopping and instead rely on home-made bullets to shoot things to eat in order to stay alive it is completely preposterous to even attempt to claim firearms as any sort of life-aid.

Also just because you cannot comprehend a person's argument does not mean that they are confused - in fact, it's usually quite the contrary.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] I know plenty of people that live their lives without a car. It's silly to say it's a requirement.thegerg

What about everybody else? i.e. 95% of people?Even if they can, people do need cars orvehiclesto go places, and it's a barenecessity.

like I said, I think you live in your own little world if you don't believe a car is a necessity.

How do you expect people to get other necessities like food and shelter if they can't get to work to afford them?

You clearly live in your own little world, and suck at debating as well.

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"][QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]why do you assume a gun is only used to end a life? it can be used to defend multiple livesthegerg

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] No. I am not in my own little world. Owning a car certainly makes life much easier for most people that do own a car. That doesn't mean that a car is a requirement for life.thegerg

How do you expect people to get other necessities like food and shelter if they can't get to work to afford them?

You clearly live in your own little world, and suck at debating as well.

No, it is not preposterous. You seem to be confused.thegerg

Mightn't be this way in London, but there are various practical uses for firearms in various parts of the U.S. including:

-A means of self-defense

-Putting food on the table

Right. This doesn't mean that guns are designed only for taking life, or that shooting stuff=ending life. Please try not to make untrue and baseless statements.

Also, please try to act like an adult. Childish insults don't help anyone.thegerg

I would make a sarcastic statement that yes, I was wrong, obviously it was clay pigeon shooting that the maker had in mind when the gun was first designed - but I fear you'd probably find it too confusing.

Guns were made to kill things. They are weapons. When they were first designed it was purely as a way to make attacking, maiming and killing someone/something more efficient. This is about the fourth time I've said this and you probably still won't be able to comprehend the concept.

Also I was not 'childishly insulting' but merely stating the truth. You seem to be confused.

I think the whole concept of rights is silly.Lonelynight

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]Right. This doesn't mean that guns are designed only for taking life, or that shooting stuff=ending life. Please try not to make untrue and baseless statements.

Also, please try to act like an adult. Childish insults don't help anyone.thegerg

I would make a sarcastic statement that yes, I was wrong, obviously it was clay pigeon shooting that the maker had in mind when the gun was first designed - but I fear you'd probably find it too confusing.

Guns were made to kill things. They are weapons. When they were first designed it was purely as a way to make attacking, maiming and killing someone/something more efficient. This is about the fourth time I've said this and you probably still won't be able to comprehend the concept.

Also I was not 'childishly insulting' but merely stating the truth. You seem to be confused.

You're right, guns were originally invented to kill things.thegerg

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]

I would make a sarcastic statement that yes, I was wrong, obviously it was clay pigeon shooting that the maker had in mind when the gun was first designed - but I fear you'd probably find it too confusing.

Guns were made to kill things. They are weapons. When they were first designed it was purely as a way to make attacking, maiming and killing someone/something more efficient. This is about the fourth time I've said this and you probably still won't be able to comprehend the concept.

Also I was not 'childishly insulting' but merely stating the truth. You seem to be confused.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="thegerg"] You're right, guns were originally invented to kill things. Modern guns, though, aren't designed only to kill things.chrisrooR

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I think the whole concept of rights is silly.KC_Hokie

.. The second amendment is extremely vague, and we should obviously have some kind of restrictions on it.. Because "arms" can range from anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb.sSubZerOo

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

.. The second amendment is extremely vague, and we should obviously have some kind of restrictions on it.. Because "arms" can range from anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb.sSubZerOo

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is the 2nd amendment, it was given to stop tyrants from taking over the people. Don't believe me? Look up the rise to power of Hitler Stalin, Castro, and any other dictator, the FIRST thing they did was ban guns from people. Hitler told the populace that it was to protect the children, then he turned and used those same guns on those children.

Any man that truly values freedom understands how important the right to bear arms is.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. The second amendment is extremely vague, and we should obviously have some kind of restrictions on it.. Because "arms" can range from anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb.KC_Hokie

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

..... Sorry but what does that have ANYTHING to do with my point? I stated that the 2nd amendment is extremely vague when it comes to "arms", and why we shoudl always have restrictions on it to a extent.. James Madison could never have imagined that mankind would develope weapons that could threaten the entire world with things like nuclear weapons.. Hence why people can not legaly purchase military grade explosives, small pox virus, etc etc..

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is the 2nd amendment, it was given to stop tyrants from taking over the people. Don't believe me? Look up the rise to power of Hitler Stalin, Castro, and any other dictator, the FIRST thing they did was ban guns from people. Hitler told the populace that it was to protect the children, then he turned and used those same guns on those children.

Any man that truly values freedom understands how important the right to bear arms is.

ShadowMoses900

Hitler and Stalin were both put in to office on the shoulders of the people.. The control of weapons has NOTHING to do with them getting into power, nor does it have anything to do with them staying in power.. They stayed into power because they had a secret police and divided and conquered.. This isn't suggesting the 2nd amendment should be revoked though.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. The second amendment is extremely vague, and we should obviously have some kind of restrictions on it.. Because "arms" can range from anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb.sSubZerOo

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

..... Sorry but what does that have ANYTHING to do with my point? I stated that the 2nd amendment is extremely vague when it comes to "arms", and why we shoudl always have restrictions on it to a extent.. James Madison could never have imagined that mankind would develope weapons that could threaten the entire world with things like nuclear weapons..

[QUOTE="thegerg"]You're right, guns were originally invented to kill things.MissLibrarian

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]James Madison was extremely clear what he meant and stated it in the Federalist papers.

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

KC_Hokie

..... Sorry but what does that have ANYTHING to do with my point? I stated that the 2nd amendment is extremely vague when it comes to "arms", and why we shoudl always have restrictions on it to a extent.. James Madison could never have imagined that mankind would develope weapons that could threaten the entire world with things like nuclear weapons..

... What about automatic weapons? What about tanks? What about military grade explosives? Nuclear weapons was the extreme in that example, but its hardly the only thing that falls under that catch all phrase that is extremely dangerous..

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. The second amendment is extremely vague, and we should obviously have some kind of restrictions on it.. Because "arms" can range from anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb.sSubZerOo

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

..... Sorry but what does that have ANYTHING to do with my point? I stated that the 2nd amendment is extremely vague when it comes to "arms", and why we shoudl always have restrictions on it to a extent.. James Madison could never have imagined that mankind would develope weapons that could threaten the entire world with things like nuclear weapons..

It's not vague, it points it out clear as day that we have the right to own fire arms. There are nesseccary restrictions yes, but the idea of people quoting the 2nd amendment and trying to own nuclear weapons is just asinine and just makes your argument look misinformed and desperate. You should look up gun laws in the US, you seem misinformed. For the record, an "assault weapon" does NOT mean a fully automatic fire arm, those are already heavily restricted.

The term "assault weapon" ban is just taking advantage of naive people who are uneducated about guns and trying to scare them with a play on words. The only thing the "assault" ban did was ban cosmetic parts. It was pushed by Hilary Clinton and other D-bags with an agenda.

Indeed it is a right however to acquire a firearm is a privilege.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

..... Sorry but what does that have ANYTHING to do with my point? I stated that the 2nd amendment is extremely vague when it comes to "arms", and why we shoudl always have restrictions on it to a extent.. James Madison could never have imagined that mankind would develope weapons that could threaten the entire world with things like nuclear weapons..

sSubZerOo

... What about automatic weapons? What about tanks? What about military grade explosives? Nuclear weapons was the extreme in that example, but its hardly the only thing that falls under that catch all phrase that is extremely dangerous..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]James Madison was extremely clear what he meant and stated it in the Federalist papers.

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

ShadowMoses900

..... Sorry but what does that have ANYTHING to do with my point? I stated that the 2nd amendment is extremely vague when it comes to "arms", and why we shoudl always have restrictions on it to a extent.. James Madison could never have imagined that mankind would develope weapons that could threaten the entire world with things like nuclear weapons..

It's not vague, it points it out clear as day that we have the right to own fire arms. There are nesseccary restrictions yes, but the idea of people quoting the 2nd amendment and trying to own nuclear weapons is just asinine and just makes your argument look misinformed and desperate. You should look up gun laws in the US, you seem misinformed. For the record, an "assault weapon" does NOT mean a fully automatic fire arm, those are already heavily restricted.

The term "assault weapon" ban is just taking advantage of naive people who are uneducated about guns and trying to scare them with a play on words. The only thing the "assault" ban did was ban cosmetic parts. It was pushed by Hilary Clinton and other D-bags with an agenda.

No the 2nd amendment says Arms that is my point.. That it must be said that I am for 2nd amendment with restrictions.. And why not nuclear weapons are a form of "arms" hence why I was pointing out that restrictions must be in the second amendment due to how vague it is.. Nuclear weapons are hardly the only thing that is banned and for good reason.. Such as automatic weapons, military explosives, and other such things..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The Federalist papers were also clear that the right to bear arms was for self defense. You obviously don't use nukes for self defense. It really isn't that complicated. KC_Hokie

... What about automatic weapons? What about tanks? What about military grade explosives? Nuclear weapons was the extreme in that example, but its hardly the only thing that falls under that catch all phrase that is extremely dangerous..

.. Which was my entire point, that I am for the second amendment withcertain restrictions.. Apparently I wasn't make my self clear enough.. :|

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is the 2nd amendment, it was given to stop tyrants from taking over the people. Don't believe me? Look up the rise to power of Hitler Stalin, Castro, and any other dictator, the FIRST thing they did was ban guns from people. Hitler told the populace that it was to protect the children, then he turned and used those same guns on those children.

Any man that truly values freedom understands how important the right to bear arms is.

sSubZerOo

Hitler and Stalin were both put in to office on the shoulders of the people.. The control of weapons has NOTHING to do with them getting into power, nor does it have anything to do with them staying in power.. They stayed into power because they had a secret police and divided and conquered.. This isn't suggesting the 2nd amendment should be revoked though.

And the first thing they did was ban guns, the Nazi party had on of the most anti gun policies when Hitler joined them. Sme of their so called "arguments" to get guns out of the hands of citizens are eerily similar to many talking points that anti gun loonies use today.

If you support freedom you must suppot the right to bear arms, you can't have one without the other.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... What about automatic weapons? What about tanks? What about military grade explosives? Nuclear weapons was the extreme in that example, but its hardly the only thing that falls under that catch all phrase that is extremely dangerous..

sSubZerOo

.. Which was my entire point, that I am for the second amendment withcertain restrictions.. Apparently I wasn't make my self clear enough.. :|

And I'm saying there already are restrictions. It's not vague at all.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

..... Sorry but what does that have ANYTHING to do with my point? I stated that the 2nd amendment is extremely vague when it comes to "arms", and why we shoudl always have restrictions on it to a extent.. James Madison could never have imagined that mankind would develope weapons that could threaten the entire world with things like nuclear weapons..

sSubZerOo

It's not vague, it points it out clear as day that we have the right to own fire arms. There are nesseccary restrictions yes, but the idea of people quoting the 2nd amendment and trying to own nuclear weapons is just asinine and just makes your argument look misinformed and desperate. You should look up gun laws in the US, you seem misinformed. For the record, an "assault weapon" does NOT mean a fully automatic fire arm, those are already heavily restricted.

The term "assault weapon" ban is just taking advantage of naive people who are uneducated about guns and trying to scare them with a play on words. The only thing the "assault" ban did was ban cosmetic parts. It was pushed by Hilary Clinton and other D-bags with an agenda.

No the 2nd amendment says Arms that is my point.. That it must be said that I am for 2nd amendment with restrictions.. And why not nuclear weapons are a form of "arms" hence why I was pointing out that restrictions must be in the second amendment due to how vague it is.. Nuclear weapons are hardly the only thing that is banned and for good reason.. Such as automatic weapons, military explosives, and other such things..

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I'm saying the Supreme Court's interpretation is clearly defined in what laws they upheld or overturned. There is no mystery of the 2nd Amendment and what you can and can't have. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] There obviously was if the supreme court had to make an interpretation.Ace6301

There is nothing vague in what you can and can't have. That's the bottom line.

I don't hear people arguing other Bill of Rights are too 'vague'. That's because we have laws which were upheld by the Supreme Court and rulings based on precedent. It's silly to say 'I don't like the 1st Amendment because it's vague'. It's equally silly to say the 2nd Amendment is 'vague'.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]What you can and can't have are clearly defined. That's the ultimate point. No mystery involved. KC_Hokie

There is nothing vague in what you can and can't have. That's the bottom line.

I don't hear people arguing other Bill of Rights are too 'vague'. That's because we have laws which were upheld by the Supreme Court and rulings based on precedent. It's silly to say 'I don't like the 1st Amendment because it's vague'. It's equally silly to say the 2nd Amendment is 'vague'.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You're just feigning ignorance for the sake of your argument now because you've realized your original point has been jossed.Ace6301

There is nothing vague in what you can and can't have. That's the bottom line.

I don't hear people arguing other Bill of Rights are too 'vague'. That's because we have laws which were upheld by the Supreme Court and rulings based on precedent. It's silly to say 'I don't like the 1st Amendment because it's vague'. It's equally silly to say the 2nd Amendment is 'vague'.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]People that dislike the 2nd Amendment like to use the line 'I don't like the 2nd Amendment because it's too vague'.

There is nothing vague in what you can and can't have. That's the bottom line.

I don't hear people arguing other Bill of Rights are too 'vague'. That's because we have laws which were upheld by the Supreme Court and rulings based on precedent. It's silly to say 'I don't like the 1st Amendment because it's vague'. It's equally silly to say the 2nd Amendment is 'vague'.

KC_Hokie