[RexNFX140]

Originally Posted by Reako

WTF are you even tryig to ramble off there buddy?

You literally said the 2nd ammendment was to keep a militia from rising up against an opressive government. You seriously need to reread your history friend, our founding fathers were paranoid against government.

You're right, although you could have corrected me in a more respectful way than you did - but I would expect nothing more on Sherdog.

What I meant was:

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the banning of militias that would fight government oppression. The rest of my post makes sense.

[Reako]

Originally Posted by RexNFX140

You're right, although you could have corrected me in a more respectful way than you did - but I would expect nothing more on Sherdog.

What I meant was:

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the banning of militias that would fight government oppression. The rest of my post makes sense.

hahaha, hey, you had me scratching my damn head wondering what you were trying to actually argue there.

I do not see the leap to making a technically inferior (in some ways) weapon illegal over a superior one. The only reason handguns are even at issue is you can conceal them. You wont get the majority of americans to think because its smaller it should be banned.

[RexNFX140]

Originally Posted by Reako

Lets also not forget that handguns were not very good or practical at this time in many ways either. So why would they purposely want to preclude them? Really you are making very little sense. The reality is is that you dont like guns, we get it, dont buy any.

My stance on guns is irrelevant to this discussion.

We agree that the constitution protects the right to bear arms. The only issue is what kind of arms does it protect.

I think we're in agreement that it doesn't protect the individual right to bear nuclear weapons, grenade launchers, etc. But where do we draw the line? The answer is, you draw the line at the spot where the framers of the constitution would have intended to draw the line - and that is at rifles.

The framers has little to no use for handguns, and would not have intended to protect the individual right to bear handguns.

[Reako]

Originally Posted by RexNFX140

My stance on guns is irrelevant to this discussion.

We agree that the constitution protects the right to bear arms. The only issue is what kind of arms does it protect.

I think we're in agreement that it doesn't protect the individual right to bear nuclear weapons, grenade launchers, etc. But where do we draw the line? The answer is, you draw the line at the spot where the framers of the constitution would have intended to draw the line - and that is at rifles.

The framers has little to no use for handguns, and would not have intended to protect the individual right to bear handguns.

You are making a leap by saying that though. I have seen no language from any of the founders that would enable you to make that leap. The framers of the constitution left it vague for a reason. They were smart enough to know that, they had no clue what technology would be invented in the future. I think while they of course could likely have not thought of the tech that has made what it has today. I have to believe they were smart enough to realize that they could not envision everything.

I also think its a backwards leap to think they would not want to protect what would have been thought of as an inferior weapon. I would believe it more likely that they would have thought "well ya, sidearms, the big ones are protected why not the little ones"

[RexNFX140]

Originally Posted by Reako

You are making a leap by saying that though. I have seen no language from any of the founders that would enable you to make that leap. The framers of the constitution left it vague for a reason. They were smart enough to know that, they had no clue what technology would be invented in the future. I think while they of course could likely have not thought of the tech that has made what it has today. I have to believe they were smart enough to realize that they could not envision everything.

I also think its a backwards leap to think they would not want to protect what would have been thought of as an inferior weapon. I would believe it more likely that they would have thought "well ya, sidearms, the big ones are protected why not the little ones"

But rifles are not an inferior weapon if you are a militia organized to fight government oppression. Handguns are primarily used to protect your home. The purpose of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with protecting your home.

Let's just agree to disagree. I have to get back to work.

[johil d'o]

I honestly feel much safer in my home knowing that I've got a short barreled shotgun available to me should any intruder come into my home and threaten my family. I lived through the LA riots in 1992 and it was obvious to me that you cannot protect your home against intruders without a firearm.

[N-do]

Originally Posted by Reako

You are making a leap by saying that though. I have seen no language from any of the founders that would enable you to make that leap. The framers of the constitution left it vague for a reason. They were smart enough to know that, they had no clue what technology would be invented in the future. I think while they of course could likely have not thought of the tech that has made what it has today. I have to believe they were smart enough to realize that they could not envision everything.

I also think its a backwards leap to think they would not want to protect what would have been thought of as an inferior weapon. I would believe it more likely that they would have thought "well ya, sidearms, the big ones are protected why not the little ones"

You tell him he's making a leap by putting words into the founders mouths, and then proceed in the second paragraph to put your own words in the founders mouths.

Just thought I'd point that out to you

kind of humourous

[Buddy Knox]

unfallen'star has to be the dumbest kid on the internet.

[Buddy Knox]

I don't spend my life worrying about the boogieman coming to get me. I've had a gun pulled on me once. It was mostly my fault for being in a bad neighborhood and not paying any attention to my surroundings. I lived to tell the tale, lesson learned. Despite that I've never felt the need to own a gun. I'm more than confident of handling myself in a physical situation, I don't need a weapon to feel safe. With that being said, I don't blame anyone who does. It's a crazy world.

[freeflow64]

Originally Posted by AcidFiend

How many people are killed by guns in America every year?

And really, how many people are 'saved' by people being able to carry them?

Do the math idiot. Guns are bad, and people that support their mainstream use are dumb.

as far as i've checked a gun hasn't murdered/killed anyone yet. people kill people.