What is more dangerous? The 1st or the 2nd Amendment

@thegerg: well threats fall under hate speech and you know threats are unlawful.

@thegerg: threats can be objective. I can believe I'm just giving a speech say "we need to get rid of Mexicans by any means necessary, kill them if you have to" and someone could shut down the speech and I could end up in court because it sounded like a threat to them. In some instances, yes, I am sticking to the claim, as soon as someone takes it as hate speech it becomes unlawful.

@thegerg: yeah, yeah, I did try to broaden the term hate speech.

@thegerg: What gun did the Orlando shooter use? I rest my case.

You bring something like an AR-15, or whatever, into a club, or a crowded place, and you can take down many people quickly.

@thegerg: What kind of drugs are you on?

"designed specifically for the civilian market"?

BS. Read the first sentence. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/foghorn/gun-review-sig-sauer-mcx/

The fact of the matter is, that these semi and fully automatic weapons are capable of mass shootings in a short period of time.

@thegerg: Like I've said before, semi and fully automatic guns, are capable of mass shootings in short periods of time. Look at every mass shooting you see. They use semi or fully automatic guns. Not handguns.

You bring any semi-auto weapon even a non-"assault" weapon (honestly semi-auto assault weapon is the retardest term ever) into a "crowded place and you can take down many people quickly". Hell, forget the weapon part, anyone bringing a pipe bomb, or molotov cocktail or IED or any homemade flammables or explosives into a packed nightclub has the potential to do equal or more harm.

@redrichard: that's why we are all American now and prime reason all of Europe not speaking german now or asia Japanese.

think what the world would be like today if some guys did not hide guns in a barn in a few towns away from me 240 years ago.

most of them guys where nuts too.

how would the world had changed?

well for one mr jeffereson would not bought half of America from spain......texas would belong to mexico.

there be no us forces in asia ....

nothing to stop the Japanese in ww2.

Alaska would Russian.

all because some guys stook up with free speech and guns.....that neither was legal then.

freedom of choice.....is not free.

you have to attach something to it to makes sure it remains free.

for many it was a price in blood on a beach somewhere or in a god forsaken jungle.

many gave something ...some gave everything.

when we talk of banning freedoms from anyone to use a bathroom or serve or have a right to speak free we become like places like Singapore where you cant run for anything or say anything unless your part of the chosen few.

they might not beat or torture you but they take you to court claim libel and take away not only your future but that of your familys.

freedom to say what you think in a election running for a election is not legal everywhere.

speak or say anything about the king in Thailand or royal family and get tossed into jail.

who to say that tomorrow a small group of people could exclude you from every right you have.....what to stop them?

the right to bear arms is the one thing the government fears most.......the people.

it protects all even if you don't want it protection....

it don't come free...

there a price to this form of freedom.....

I feel for those who pay that price threw no act of there own had to give up there most important right of all.

but before we toss out every freedom to feel safe.

remember what our founding fathers said on that subject.

those will to give up liberty for security deserve nither.

When was the last time a legally owned fully automatic gun was used in a mass shooting? I'm genuinely curious.

Did not say that. I said it enables it to thrive. There is no law against hate speech, so the WBC, KKK, Neo Nazis, anti-LGBTs, etc, can say whatever they want, rally and protest anything they want. Even though it's free thinking, it's dangerous thinking.

I've never owned any sort of gun that could be branded as an "assault style weapon." I have two double barreled shotguns my grandpa brought back from ww2 france, a S&W .38 special, and a couple of .306 rifles for hunting.

My question is: Would it be easier for a madman with an AR15 to kill multiple people if it was an automatic weapon, or modified to be so? It seems with shot grouping, you would waste ammunition and accuracy in full auto mode. So would a semi auto rifle do more damage, considering the shooter can pick his targets and pull more easily?

We don't need guns. Repeal the second amendment. It's useless. We kill more of our own people every year than terrorists do. We do not need firearms. How many children have to get killed before we say "enough"? Abolish the NRA for a start. Say what you must about me being stupid- we're going to see major gun reform in this country very, very soon.

This forum is so laughably embarrassing

@Shmiity:

Definitely something needs to be done about the NRA.....I wouldn't repeal the 2nd ammendment, but banning unnecessary high-powered guns is necessary. Stricter control on who gets guns as well.

Unfortunately if we ban guns altogether there would be a revolution. But if we continue to allow the NRA control policy there may be one as well.

This past weekend Chicago had its 300th killing of 2016. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The only people who can't get guns are the honest hard working people who want to protect themselves. The only thing that protects people from government is the second amendment.

Neither, after all I am not a communist nor fascist and I actually value the personal freedoms and rights of people.. Hey while we are at it lets throw in the fourth amendment too, cops don't need a legitimate reason to search you, it's protecting too many criminals obviously.. We would all be safer if the authorities had complete control over every one..

My thoughts exactly, because a AR-15 is not a high powered rifle..

You need guns to enforce gun control. So you're not anti-gun as you are pro-only government should have guns. And even if you are right about a "major gun reform" on the horizon doesn't mean you're not stupid for supporting your own oppression.

1st Amendment:

What the founders wanted: "Free and rational discussions on political and religious issues."

What they got: "OBUMMER IS A MUZZIE TerRORIST StOP OPPRESSING MY FREEduM OF SPEECH!"

2nd Amendment:

What the founders wanted: "An armed population ready to form militias so that they can fight foreign invaders when the time comes (considering that there was no standing military at that time)"

What they got: "I GOt A RIGHT TO ARM MYSELF WITH AR15 YO DEFEND MYFREEDUMS! Except Muslims though, we got to deport them and monitor them.... FREEDUM!!!!!!!!!"

Both have their pros and cons. That said, I wouldn't say either are more dangerous but both are prone to abuse, especially the 1st Amendment. I support freedom of expression but unfortunately you have those who lie and exaggerate to prey on people's fears and unfortunately, they get the vote. Lies spread like wildfire whereas the truth is ignored.

@sSubZerOo:

Well, forgive my wording then, anything beyond a personal handgun, shotgun, or a low-powered hunting rifle should be banned.

If it wouldn't cause a major uproar, I think they should all be banned, but that isn't the case. As it is, anything beyond personal defense and enough to kill deer and similarly overpopulated animals is fine.

@wildaries: What is your point?

Lol, come on. I'm not being oppressed. Are the citizens of Australia being oppressed because they cant have guns? No. You guys are so funny. Thousands of people are killed by domestic gun violence every year and you're still saying WE NEED EM TO RISE UP AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, MAN! Hahahaha. How's your fallout shelter and doomsday planning going?

I would have no problem if the US government said, "Turn in your guns, you can't handle the responsibility anymore." I agree. Sure, people argue, "Hey! Im a responsible gun owner! Thats not fair!". But at what point do we say too many people are dying. Our kids, teachers, families- thousands of people. Sure, there are responsible gun owners, but enough is enough. Take them all way. If I was a gun owner, I would understand that even though im responsible, it's gotten out of hand it's time to give it up.

"Protect themselves" argument doesn't hold up for me, sorry. Out of those 300 killings, you really think if the opposing party had guns, it would have prevented... more killing? huh? You can grandstand me all you want and say "YEAH THE 300 DEATHS WOULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF WE COULD PROTECT OURSELVES!" You know youre wrong. Take all the guns away from everyone. We don't need them. We don't. Protect us from the government? Are you nuts? Are you a doomsday planner, too? Holy shit, guys. Come on.

Would you know that you're being oppressed? Sounds like you trust and obey any government explicitly, so even you are taking it up the ass (figuratively speaking) and they tell you you like it, you'd probably ask for second. Plus what's your recourse even if you want it?

As for Australia:
http://www.hangthebankers.com/australia-is-now-officially-a-police-state/
http://theconversation.com/australian-nightmares-the-rise-of-a-police-state-32156
http://www.globalresearch.ca/australias-police-state-coercive-surveillance-and-the-new-security-laws/5404645

The fed itself isn't necessarily our problem- it's the lobbying. Big money, big banks, big influences able to contribute to our congressmen and effect decisionmaking/re-electing. First two things we need to do are : Eliminate Citizen's United, and abolish the NRA. After that happens, we can actually start to do something, anything.

Design is irrelevant. Nuclear weapons are designed to eradicate all lives on earth yet in reality the fear of the weapons have kept the world at relative peace and prevented escalation of regional conflicts into a global total war like in the past. Statistically cigarettes, fast food, cars and alcohol have killed more people than guns in the US. I don't need try to embarrass you, you do that well enough on your own when you are that far off from reality.

... This is why this entire debate is intellectually bankrupt.. People are using mass shootings as some how the focal point of why something should be done.. Mass shootings happen so rarely in a country of 300 million people, that you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning by many times over.. And I am by no means anti gun reform or pro NRA.. I in fact do not like the militant gun culture within the United States.. But if people were actually concerned about the wellbeing and safety of people there are numerous preventable deaths that claim far more lives each year that doesn't bring in a massive debate regarding the bill of rights.. You could make the argument the gun reform should happen with perhaps stricter background checks, or longer wait periods.. But this entire debate is entire appeal to emotion fallacy in using a tragic event that rarely happens that claim few lives compared to the numerous other causes of death out there.

Heart disease: 614,348

• Cancer: 591,699

• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101

• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053

• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103

• Alzheimer's disease: 93,541

• Diabetes: 76,488

• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227

• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146

• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773

Top Causes of death in United States in 2014.. Most of these are preventable, yet for some reason we don't see the kind of media and political shit storm as we are seeing when a mass shooting of a few dozen people die.. School shootings for instance has claimed something like 300 lives over a 30 years period.... I can't take this kind of rhetoric seriously talking about saving lives when there are much higher causes of death in the United States by a massive margin that are preventable.. Which furthermore outside the media shit storm of coverage, violent crime is the lowest it has been in 30 to 40 years and is lowering each year.

I agree mostly. And you're right in that gun crimes are on the declining trend for the last couple of decades. Ironically, some of the cities with the strictest gun control law like Chicago and DC are actually seeing an uptick of violence and homicide recently.

@JustPlainLucas said:

Everyone has the right to free speech, but as a result, hatred and bigotry and racism continue to thrive.

hahahaha

yeah those things would totally go away without the first amendment

hahahahahahaha

Well said. Ultimately none of the posters you intended this to will read it unfortunately. They are just looking for things that justifies their set opinions about the world.

fly swatters mousetraps and herbicides are to protect humans from animals that give disease and destroy crops. And trying to obfuscate with appeals to firearms sports seems dishonest. The primary purpose of guns is to kill. If it was not, well, I would be wrong about history.