1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Erosion of the 2nd amendment

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by MilsurpShooter, Apr 25, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MilsurpShooter

    MilsurpShooter Member

    Feb 3, 2005
    Under a rock somewhere
    At what point do the people say enough is enough, and when the people finally get to that point, how do they stand up and make themselves heard? The ammendments have been in place since they've been penned by a quill during the formation of this nation. There are 27 of them if I remember correctly, yet the 2nd one on the list has taken the most fire over the years. No other ammendment has been debated, scrutinized, judged, and ruled upon as much as this one has... At least it seems that way. I have to ask, where does the nation and people that think this ammendment are a nuisance, get off with anaylzing, twisting and distorting it to the point where it suits their goals?

    What if the first ammendment was to be taken under scrutiny the way the second was? Ban all Internet and TV news free speech. When the First Amendment was written, the founding fathers did not know what a pivotal impact these things would play in day to day life, so it's obviously outdated and useless now. The first ammendment applies only to written text and not to the rest of the news media.

    No hmm? Didn't think so. Well then, it's been generally agreed that the news media plays a huge impact on day to day things. Weather reports, war reports... Who can forget Mr. Geraldo Rivera giving the enemy combatants the US troop movements? So, there should be some kind of regulation on this powerful and useful tool. News computers with that massive processing speed should be licensed and registered. Pencils are excluded due to low capacity. Pens can be used for long periods of time before the ink runs out so we should require a special Class 3 license for them. Cameras too, some of them can take continuous pictures while... Oh my god... Holding the button down. Some of these are automatic cameras. We know the evils photographs can do, from the illegal to the blackmail kind, so why don't we register all cameras... don't even get me started on the zoom lens attachments and folding tripods.

    No again? Darn, thought I was getting somewhere with that. How about automobiles. These kill more people then firearms, be it either through negligent drivers or defect. We should put stricter controls on them. Have a government official come down from Washington DC and tell Sarah Soccermom that she absolutely can not have that H3 hummer because there is no practical purpose and she doesn't need it. I could hear the screaming of indignation now on how the government can't tell her what to do and they should just butt out of her life. But if I want to go buy a Barret there's nary a whisper.

    Aha, I know. I got a speeding ticket, I'll sue Hyundai and bring them to court. Of course it CAN'T be my fault, I didn't have a heavy foot and speed, no, it's Hyundai's fault for MAKING my car have the ability to go past the speed limit. Yes, that's it. I can't possibly be in the wrong, it's someone elses fault.

    I honestly don't know what the point of this post was supposed to be. Moderators, lock or move if you see fit. I guess all the arguments that have been used and that I've seen have finally just gotten to me. On how absurd and how ridiculous they are when used in context other then gun contol. The general concepts are the same but if you replace gun with car or something along those lines, something that is reasonable to many, suddenly becomes an argument that would have the nation up in arms about... Sorry guess that's a bad pun.

    This nation was pretty much founded on a revolution, a war that overthrew a government that didn't have it's people in it's best interest, just it's own coiffers and coin purses. Those men and women used the tools available to them, they didn't silently roll over, they stood up and said no, we don't want that and we're not going to let you do it... I wouldn't go so far as to say that a government should be affraid of it's people, far from it for that just breeds fear, reprisal and retribution, but a government that has no reason to worry about what they're doing and no fear of accountability for it's actions is one that will run roughshod over the people that elect them. Everyone always says more gun control this, more regulation on that... Well I bet more people have died from gun control then have died from firearms. Yep, I said it. I don't have definite numbers but I bet if you tally up the amount of deaths from Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo you'll have a pretty high number. And, no, for any anti's that do read this, if they do, I'm not comparing the gun grabbers to faschist dictators, i'm just trying to say it's not always the answer and doesn't always work the way it's intended.

    I'll be the first to admit, a world where guns weren't needed would be welcome... On the surface. But everyone seems to equate guns with all the evil and death in this world. They forget a little thing called... hmm what was it? The Crusades. No guns during that little tiff in the middle east but it didn't stop them from killing back then. What people don't realize is many of the things in everyday usage was made before the gun and was made to kill a person. That hammer you used to fix your porch, meant to smash a guy in full armor and crush it like a tin can. That baseball bat you let your son play with? Caveman days, a club used to kill enemy's and hunt food. Bet you've played with a boomerang haven't you? Aborigine hunting weapon... But don't worry it's the guns that kill everyone.

    Sorry for this guys. I've just been doing a lot of thinking as of late and the more sense I try to make of it, the more convoluted and murky the waters become.
  2. Mr White

    Mr White Member

    Oct 9, 2006
    Central PA
    Jay, I think you're missing the point of the First Amendment.

    The First Amendment was intended to be a collective right. It deals more with giving the states the rights to establish and permit whichever religions they deem appropriate and to freely disseminate information to the people. It is not an individual right and in no way was intended to give individuals the rights to practice the religion of their choice, or freely express their ideas. Granting those sorts of freedoms and rights to individuals is a preposterous idea!

  3. Sage of Seattle

    Sage of Seattle Member

    May 24, 2006
    Great post Jay! I would just like to add that


    Edited to add: oops. Apparently my Free Speech permit has expired. I guess I'd better go renew it today.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page