Current Events > Illinois town bans ARs. Citizens forced to surrender weapons or face fines.

(+) Yeah! (+)

liberals finally not even hiding their communist agenda anymore.

liberals can say till the cows come home that this about safety and common sense. but they are wrong. why do they cherry pick the 2nd amendment exactly? I mean plenty of other things are quite lethal. why aren't we restricting that stuff too? a 10 year old can go buy a kitchen knife and stab his sister to death.....theres no restriction on his ability to buy that knife?

heck if we want to talk truly lethal parts of the US constitution....how about that 1st amendment. the freedom of expression....there is literally nothing more lethal than an idea.

see liberals hate the US constitution, they hate the bill of rights. they like to say they don't but their actions prove it. they constantly shut down conservative speech, pass gun ban/restriction laws, and seem to think that the government will protect them from any further violation of their rights.....which they are giving up daily.

yes the founders were slave owners....shit fucking happens man. they still created a country that became the beacon of freedom in the world. no one said they were perfect. and eventually slavery gets corrected.....but rather than saying that is proof the US constitution is a racist document, go take your outrage to the middle east and africa where slavery still exists instead of at the guys and the country that made the first giant step towards granting mankind freedom.

if the US constitution never came into existence there is a very good chance slavery still exists.

the bill of rights are clear.....i have a right to keep and bare arms. why does it need to be more complicated than that? because psychopaths exist? I can take a car and kill 50 people. it's that not hard to find ways to kill people en mass. we've been mastering the fine art of death since written history.

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Joseph Stalin

kayoticdreamz posted...

the bill of rights are clear.....i have a right to keep and bare arms. why does it need to be more complicated than that?

Because the arms the 2nd amendment is technically referring to could fire about 3 bullets per minute. You're allowed to own certain kinds of guns today, but most certainly not all kinds of guns. It should be updated.
---

CableZL posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

the bill of rights are clear.....i have a right to keep and bare arms. why does it need to be more complicated than that?

Because the arms the 2nd amendment is technically referring to could fire about 3 bullets per minute. You're allowed to own certain kinds of guns today, but most certainly not all kinds of guns. It should be updated.

You keep repeating this, yet when I asked you stated you had no solution. I also posted this as a retort:

If you consider it from a technological advancement perspective, and the original intent being the right to self defense, then force should be equal. Unless the country were to abolish advanced weaponry on a large-scale, like disarm our military, which would put us at a serious disadvantage on a geopolitical level, it follows citizens should have the same access to technology that we empower those that govern us to possess. The government derives its power from the people.

And you did not respond.

@sondast posted...

None of the Trumpster fire posters here still haven't explained why it's so bad to keep your assault weapons in a container.

Well there is no such thing as an assault weapon
---

CableZL posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

the bill of rights are clear.....i have a right to keep and bare arms. why does it need to be more complicated than that?

Because the arms the 2nd amendment is technically referring to could fire about 3 bullets per minute. You're allowed to own certain kinds of guns today, but most certainly not all kinds of guns. It should be updated.

Incorrect
---

fenderbender321 posted...

You don't think the people who drafted the 2nd amendment realized that technology would progress?

I think it's possible that they realized technology would progress. Still, as it stands today, we have "the right to bear arms," but that certainly doesn't apply to every kind of gun in existence. So I think it's fair to say that the 2nd amendment should be updated to specify which kind of guns we're allowed to have instead of leaving it up to interpretation of the words of hypocrites from hundreds of years ago.
---

@CableZL posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

You don't think the people who drafted the 2nd amendment realized that technology would progress?

I think it's possible that they realized technology would progress. Still, as it stands today, we have "the right to bear arms," but that certainly doesn't apply to every kind of gun in existence. So I think it's fair to say that the 2nd amendment should be updated to specify which kind of guns we're allowed to have instead of leaving it up to interpretation of the words of hypocrites from hundreds of years ago.

I think the important thing is to look at the intent behind the 2nd amendment. It's not there to give a person the right to hunt or shoot at targets; it's there so the people have a fighting chance against an oppressive government. It was written because they had just witnessed it happening to their citizens. The British soldiers were seizing arms from the Colonists in 1774 and 1775. A major provocation for the war was the illegal searching of people's homes and seizing of their weapons.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that citizens should be able to own arms that are comparable to what a military has, based solely on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Can you give a good reason why people would not need similar arms as to those who could oppress them?
---

StucklnMyPants posted...

@CableZL posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

You don't think the people who drafted the 2nd amendment realized that technology would progress?

I think it's possible that they realized technology would progress. Still, as it stands today, we have "the right to bear arms," but that certainly doesn't apply to every kind of gun in existence. So I think it's fair to say that the 2nd amendment should be updated to specify which kind of guns we're allowed to have instead of leaving it up to interpretation of the words of hypocrites from hundreds of years ago.

I think the important thing is to look at the intent behind the 2nd amendment. It's not there to give a person the right to hunt or shoot at targets; it's there so the people have a fighting chance against an oppressive government. It was written because they had just witnessed it happening to their citizens. The British soldiers were seizing arms from the Colonists in 1774 and 1775. A major provocation for the war was the illegal searching of people's homes and seizing of their weapons.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that citizens should be able to own arms that are comparable to what a military has, based solely on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Can you give a good reason why people would not need similar arms as to those who could oppress them?

Personally, I'd rather people like Dylan Roof not have access to weaponized drones. Maybe that's just me.
---

CableZL posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

@CableZL posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

You don't think the people who drafted the 2nd amendment realized that technology would progress?

I think it's possible that they realized technology would progress. Still, as it stands today, we have "the right to bear arms," but that certainly doesn't apply to every kind of gun in existence. So I think it's fair to say that the 2nd amendment should be updated to specify which kind of guns we're allowed to have instead of leaving it up to interpretation of the words of hypocrites from hundreds of years ago.

I think the important thing is to look at the intent behind the 2nd amendment. It's not there to give a person the right to hunt or shoot at targets; it's there so the people have a fighting chance against an oppressive government. It was written because they had just witnessed it happening to their citizens. The British soldiers were seizing arms from the Colonists in 1774 and 1775. A major provocation for the war was the illegal searching of people's homes and seizing of their weapons.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that citizens should be able to own arms that are comparable to what a military has, based solely on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Can you give a good reason why people would not need similar arms as to those who could oppress them?

Personally, I'd rather people like Dylan Roof not have access to weaponized drones. Maybe that's just me.

And I'd rather not be at the complete mercy of a government whose actions I can't control, and against a government I can't defend myself against.

Thatuser posted...

You keep repeating this, yet when I asked you stated you had no solution. I also posted this as a retort:

If you consider it from a technological advancement perspective, and the original intent being the right to self defense, then force should be equal. Unless the country were to abolish advanced weaponry on a large-scale, like disarm our military, which would put us at a serious disadvantage on a geopolitical level, it follows citizens should have the same access to technology that we empower those that govern us to possess. The government derives its power from the people.

And you did not respond.

to add to this, things like TVs and the internet and radio did not exist yet are covered under the first amendment. so why exactly does the second amendment and only the second amendment apply to muskets?

because liberals are communists and they seek an oppressive government. thats why. there is no good reason to disarm law abiding peaceful citizens. none.

StucklnMyPants posted...

@CableZL posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

You don't think the people who drafted the 2nd amendment realized that technology would progress?

I think it's possible that they realized technology would progress. Still, as it stands today, we have "the right to bear arms," but that certainly doesn't apply to every kind of gun in existence. So I think it's fair to say that the 2nd amendment should be updated to specify which kind of guns we're allowed to have instead of leaving it up to interpretation of the words of hypocrites from hundreds of years ago.

I think the important thing is to look at the intent behind the 2nd amendment. It's not there to give a person the right to hunt or shoot at targets; it's there so the people have a fighting chance against an oppressive government. It was written because they had just witnessed it happening to their citizens. The British soldiers were seizing arms from the Colonists in 1774 and 1775. A major provocation for the war was the illegal searching of people's homes and seizing of their weapons.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that citizens should be able to own arms that are comparable to what a military has, based solely on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Can you give a good reason why people would not need similar arms as to those who could oppress them?

exactly this. everyone harps on about hunting and self defense from an intruder, but the point of the 2nd amendment was two fold:

1. give the people a fighting chance against an oppressive government
2. with the people armed there is always a militia on the ready without the need for large massive standing armies. it's one reason an actual land invasion of the United States would be very difficult.

now concerning point 1, a lot of people love to say well the people would stand no chance against the military....maybe so, but we all need to remember something. the colonists defeated the biggest baddest mother fucker in the whole land and were vastly over powered when they did it. so to defeat said tyrant, you don't necessarily need to be able to match them power for power. but to be clear it was never intended to stay in the musket era.

CableZL posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

@CableZL posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

You don't think the people who drafted the 2nd amendment realized that technology would progress?

I think it's possible that they realized technology would progress. Still, as it stands today, we have "the right to bear arms," but that certainly doesn't apply to every kind of gun in existence. So I think it's fair to say that the 2nd amendment should be updated to specify which kind of guns we're allowed to have instead of leaving it up to interpretation of the words of hypocrites from hundreds of years ago.

I think the important thing is to look at the intent behind the 2nd amendment. It's not there to give a person the right to hunt or shoot at targets; it's there so the people have a fighting chance against an oppressive government. It was written because they had just witnessed it happening to their citizens. The British soldiers were seizing arms from the Colonists in 1774 and 1775. A major provocation for the war was the illegal searching of people's homes and seizing of their weapons.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that citizens should be able to own arms that are comparable to what a military has, based solely on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Can you give a good reason why people would not need similar arms as to those who could oppress them?

Personally, I'd rather people like Dylan Roof not have access to weaponized drones. Maybe that's just me.

shall we start naming the ways that exist to create deadly weapons or get a hold of deadly weapons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/us/stabbings-franklin-regional-high-school-murrysville.html

look with a damn knife the dude stabs 21 people. people have hit fewer humans with guns in school shootings. shall we start banning the sale of kitchen knives? where does this lunacy of disarm the people for some fake nonexistent notion of safety end?

i'd rather have the ability to defend myself on even footing against either tyrants or lunatics(who will find a way to create/acquire a deadly weapon)

as previously stated by our dear friend Joseph Stalin:

kayoticdreamz posted...

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Joseph Stalin

the 1st amendment is the far deadly and more lethal of the two amendments.

kayoticdreamz posted...

to add to this, things like TVs and the internet and radio did not exist yet are covered under the first amendment. so why exactly does the second amendment and only the second amendment apply to muskets?

because liberals are communists and they seek an oppressive government. thats why. there is no good reason to disarm law abiding peaceful citizens. none.

We have laws regulating TV, the internet, and radio in multiple facets.
---

Yeah I can't say I am all for this. This seems a little extreme.
---

CableZL posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

to add to this, things like TVs and the internet and radio did not exist yet are covered under the first amendment. so why exactly does the second amendment and only the second amendment apply to muskets?

because liberals are communists and they seek an oppressive government. thats why. there is no good reason to disarm law abiding peaceful citizens. none.

We have laws regulating TV, the internet, and radio in multiple facets.

you can still basically say whatever you want. they are largely unrestricted.

Thatuser posted...

CableZL posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

the bill of rights are clear.....i have a right to keep and bare arms. why does it need to be more complicated than that?

Because the arms the 2nd amendment is technically referring to could fire about 3 bullets per minute. You're allowed to own certain kinds of guns today, but most certainly not all kinds of guns. It should be updated.

You keep repeating this, yet when I asked you stated you had no solution. I also posted this as a retort:

If you consider it from a technological advancement perspective, and the original intent being the right to self defense, then force should be equal. Unless the country were to abolish advanced weaponry on a large-scale, like disarm our military, which would put us at a serious disadvantage on a geopolitical level, it follows citizens should have the same access to technology that we empower those that govern us to possess. The government derives its power from the people.

And you did not respond.

I addressed that point in a later post. I'm not suggesting that we do away with advanced weaponry. I'm saying we should update the 2nd amendment to more accurately reflect the arms we're allowed to bear. We clearly don't have the right to bear every kind of weapon as it stands today, so let's update the 2nd amendment to more accurately reflect that.

Yes, we have radio, TV, internet, smartphones, etc. We also have laws regulating the use of those things.

Criminals finding ways to make deadly weapons doesn't mean we have the right to make/have them. I'd rather they have to go through the trouble of trying to make them without people finding out than just being able to go to Walmart and get them.
---

Got em
---

Not gonna read through 250+ posts but I'm guessing it's 200 wahs?
---

gunplagirl posted...

Not gonna read through 250+ posts but I'm guessing it's 200 wahs?

Low bait mate
---

More or less wahs than a game of Mario kart if you play as waluigi?
---

BettyB0op08 posted...

Wonder how this impacts chiraq

They have new new influx of ARs Shanghai'd from police evidence trucks and crooked cops
---

CableZL posted...

The bill of rights was written at the time when you could fire about 3 bullets per minute with guns, but hundreds of years and lots of constitutional amendments later, people are vehemently against updating the 2nd amendment to reflect today's society.

Actually, there were a few guns that could shoot 22 bullets in a minute. And I'm sure the founding fathers knew guns would only get more and more effective. Always a shitty argument.
---

RE_expert44 posted...

BettyB0op08 posted...

Wonder how this impacts chiraq

They have new new influx of ARs Shanghai'd from police evidence trucks and crooked cops

damn
---

RE_expert44 posted...

BettyB0op08 posted...

Wonder how this impacts chiraq

They have new new influx of ARs Shanghai'd from police evidence trucks and crooked cops

damn
---

They're really going down on it