Do you support the second amendment?

[Kearn]

No, I don't. I don't support the way that it's written, it's too vague and gives anyone the right to have ANY weapon. It needs to be re-written.

The entire Constitution needs to be re-written.

nah screw off

Well then, instead of being condescending, care to explain your point? According to your profile, you live in Florida, so I'm going to assume you support gun rights in the U.S.. Dooble was referring specifically to the U.S.. You implied that Venezuelans didn't really vote for Hugo Chavez, which, in turn, seemed to imply that we, in the U.S., don't vote for our elected officials.

nah venezuelans have elections and even though it's rigged the majority of them probably support him anyways just like with north korea

[Ad Bot]

[bejacks]

I support it, only in the means of owning a hand gun or a Hunting rifle. But if they try to take all weapons away from the people they will have a hard time taking mine.

[SeventhSandwich]

-snip-

Sure I do. I have a well-regulated militia quartered in my attic right now that's getting some weaponry on Tuesday. Luckily, if they piss me off and make too much noise at night, I can kick them out because of the 3rd amendment.

[The Tavros Nitram]

second amendment sux balws???

[Mega-Bear]

what the actual forget are you talking about
no they're not by any stretch of the imagination

That came out wrong. I meant  that people should be allowed to own guns as long as they have a license, the gun is registered, and it is of a reasonable size. For example, no one needs to own a LMG or high powered sniper rifle. Pistols and hunting rifles? Sure, my family owns two pistols. They add a sense of security to the house.

[Swollow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk

[Elecro]

I support it, but with some limitations.

[Mr.Noßody]

We don't need fully automatic machine guns.
Rifles, pistols, shotguns are fine for hunting and protection.

Of course, there is no possible way to eliminate guns and gun violence because guns aren't hard to store or make.

[Kearn]

We don't need fully automatic machine guns.

and you can't get one unless it's an old model

[Daedalus]

if the second amendment was for a militia and only for a militia it would say so

do you even know what the second amendment says?

[Harm94]

Full-auto is useless for rifles anyway. You can hit your targets better in semi because after each shot you can readjust your aim after each shot. With full-auto the recoil of the gun is going thrown off your aim and you are going to miss your target.

LMG's in the military are only good for laying down surpressive fire where the gunner fires his saw in short bursts at a target with the intention of keeping the enemy ducked in cover so your fellow riflemen can advance toward the target. LMGs are meant to engage targets at close range and use the same ammunition found in assault rifles to make logistics easier. Medium Machine guns are meant for mid ranged targets and use full sized rifle rounds like the 7.62mm NATO. Heavy Machine Gun .50 cal or larger projectiles, they are mounted on vehicles and used for engaging aircraft and lightly skinned vehicles. 20mm and up and you have yourself and auto cannon.

[Slate521]

The cities with the strictest gun-control laws often have the highest crime rate per capita. Thus, if weapons are kept in the hands of dangerous criminals, and not law-abiding citizens as well, who is the Second Amendment really protecting?

if the second amendment was for a militia and only for a militia it would say so

It was not specifically for a militia. It was defining that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It mentions that a 'well-regulated' militia has the full right to bear arms as well. Well-regulated, at the time, meant functioning properly and running smoothly, not the National Guard. People have the right to form their own militias in case Obama becomes bent on world domination.

Of course, there is no possible way to eliminate guns and gun violence because guns aren't hard to store or make.

Eliminating guns would make the gun violence worse. If you were a criminal, and you weren't sure if your burglee had a gun, would you try to rob their house? Or if you're in a school, and you don't know if all of the teachers have firearms, would you shoot it up? No, of course not.

I support it, only in the means of owning a hand gun or a Hunting rifle. But if they try to take all weapons away from the people they will have a hard time taking mine.

I support it in a similar way. I don't support people owning rocket launchers and mines or whatever. If people want to hunt, fine. If you want/need to defend yourself, great. Go buy a gun and do such things.

[Harm94]

do you even know what the second amendment says?

From my pocket constitution:

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.

and don't tell me I abridged that because I got that pocket constitution from highschool us history class. I went to public school, which are funded by state and federal government.

Also in State Government in California declared militias illegal. I'll pull the quote from penal code book if you want proof.

[Gloss²]

Make the loving poll normal.
On-Topic:
Yes, and no. I do agree with automatic weapons being illegal in the United States. There it no reason for Automatic rifles to be owned by a civilian.

The only weapons available to civilians should be Handguns and Shotguns for defense. Oh and Hunting Rifles. But that's about all.

[Slate521]

From my pocket constitution:
and don't tell me I abridged that because I got that pocket constitution from highschool us history class. I went to public school, which are funded by state and federal government.

For clarity as similar in my above post, people tend to mis-interpret 'well-regulated' which rustles my jimmies. You should add that, at the time, 'well regulated' meant 'running smoothly.'