Jump to content

Home

Presidential Debate 2004: 1 of 3


Vagabond

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by the_raven_03

That is a bad thing. The ban on assault rifles should have been held up. There is absolutely no reason that a person needs to own a gun of that power. I think it is just asking for trouble.

 

we are constitutionally allowed to bear arms, i think we should uphold the constitution. and how is it asking for trouble? i think in the grand scheme of things, the gun situation is equal, if not better than it was before.

 

previously, a criminal could use an AR, but not a normal civilian, which gave them unequal footing, now, anyone can own one, giving us equal footing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me how many times is a person going to use an assault rifle to protect themselves from a criminal. The chances are very slim. I myself see no use for them whatsoever. I don't think that guns are bad by any means, I have been raised around them my entire life because my dad owns a lot of them. I am not against them for hunting, shooting, etc., but what is an assault rifle going to do for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch

we are constitutionally allowed to bear arms, i think we should uphold the constitution. and how is it asking for trouble? i think in the grand scheme of things, the gun situation is equal, if not better than it was before.

 

previously, a criminal could use an AR, but not a normal civilian, which gave them unequal footing, now, anyone can own one, giving us equal footing

 

Well, gosh, why should we stop there? Why not allow us to have grenades and rocket launchers? After all, they're really just another variant of arms. But that's not all - I think every family should have an M1 Tank - it's our right, after all. In fact, we should all be required to walk around with cannisters of small pox gas, "just in case". But the ultimate would be if we were all able to carry a personal, tactical nuke with us, for that extra layer of protection. And we should be allowed to do this, because the Constitution entitles us to all these bountiful wonders, and more :rolleyes:

 

I actually think that there's been a huge misunderstanding about the 2nd ammendment. When it says, "the right of the people to...bear arms shall not be infringed", they're really saying that people have the right to keep the arms of bears, if they want to. So, every family has the right to hang a couple of bear arms over the fireplace. Whereas hanging the arms of, say, a gun fanatic, is sadly not protected by the constitution :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D:rofl::lol::giggle1:

 

Second ammendment was written, what, 200 years ago?

 

And there has been no adjustments to it as the country evolved.

 

Back then they didn't have such fancy things as AK47's or whatever automatic weapon you can think of. It was mostly rifles, shotguns, or a pistols.

 

It's one thing to have the right to bear arms, cause it's for defencive use. It's a whole nother thing when you bring in assault weapons, which really is in their name: Assault weapons. Offensive weapons.

 

Of course you have defensive weapons too, like an MG. ;) Why not own that? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jan Gaarni

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D:rofl::lol::giggle1:

 

Second ammendment was written, what, 200 years ago?

 

And there has been no adjustments to it as the country evolved.

 

Oh, we've had a few adjustments here and there, but by and large us Americans hate change, especially if it's progressive chanage :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...