Weapons the USA should ban

Post by **grizzaholic** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:19 pm

Ban them all or what?

Post by **CAA Flagship** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:30 pm

Bubble Boy

Post by **DSUrocks07** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:49 pm

Icepicks

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Post by **Ibanez** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:54 pm

I know I'll get in trouble for this...

Spoiler: show

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:22 pm

Ban oleanders; fatal if ingested.

Seahawks08 · Post by **Seahawks08** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:57 pm

As long as I get to keep my light saber for the zombie apocalypse, I'm good.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:21 pm

I won't pick a choice on the poll. But what gets me when things like this come up is the way you hear people talk about guns as though the idea of the second Amendment is to establish the right to have a hunting weapon or a target shooting weapon or something like that. It's not. It's clearly referring to military arms. And it's not limited to guns.

And I also don't think it says that you have to be in a militia to enjoy the right. It refers to a militia as a reason for ensuring the right. Not as a condition of it.

To me, government has already gone way over the line in violating the Second Amendment and it went over the line a long time ago. If we don't like the Second Amendment we ought to go through the process and Amend the Constitution again to take the right to keep and bear arms away or at least modify it. But this stuff of playing games of "interpretation" to allow the Federal Government to take the right away if there's a good reason for it has got to stop.

It doesn't say "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless there's a good reason for infringing." The period is right after "...not be infringed."

What part of "...not be infringed" do we not understand?

SoCalAg · Post by **SoCalAg** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Just the one whose intent is to kill

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:01 am

JohnStOnge wrote:I won't pick a choice on the poll. But what gets me when things like this come up is the way you hear people talk about guns as though the idea of the second Amendment is to establish the right to have a hunting weapon or a target shooting weapon or something like that. It's not. It's clearly referring to military arms. And it's not limited to guns.

And I also don't think it says that you have to be in a militia to enjoy the right. It refers to a militia as a reason for ensuring the right. Not as a condition of it.

To me, government has already gone way over the line in violating the Second Amendment and it went over the line a long time ago. If we don't like the Second Amendment we ought to go through the process and Amend the Constitution again to take the right to keep and bear arms away or at least modify it. But this stuff of playing games of "interpretation" to allow the Federal Government to take the right away if there's a good reason for it has got to stop.

It doesn't say "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless there's a good reason for infringing." The period is right after "...not be infringed."

What part of "...not be infringed" do we not understand?

Not sure what you're babbling on and on about
A huge majority of American understand the 2nd Amendment
otherwise it'd be gone by now / everybody take a deep breath

Seahawks08 · Post by **Seahawks08** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:22 am

A huge majority of American understand the 2nd Amendment

Indeed.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Weapons the USA should ban

Weapons the USA should ban?

Weapons the USA should ban

Re: Weapons the USA should ban

Re: Weapons the USA should ban

Re: Weapons the USA should ban

Re: Weapons the USA should ban

Re: Weapons the USA should ban

Re: Weapons the USA should ban

Re: Weapons the USA should ban

Re: Weapons the USA should ban

Re: Weapons the USA should ban