Ideally, I don't think a fully armed population is a great idea. However, with the U.S having the constitution as it does and the right to own a fire arm embedded in it's society, making sure everyone is armed whenever and where ever if they so choose can only be a good thing.

Quote:No, they'd usually shoot the ones who are killing innocent people

They are responding to a call of "shots fired, Adrian." How do they KNOW who are the innocent ones and who are the guilty ones? Unlike Hollywood westerns the bad guys don't always wear black hats!

http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2011...-campuses/

Quote:But the bill faced widespread opposition from college and university administrators, faculty and law enforcement officials.

Opponents claimed it would put campus police at a dangerous disadvantage in trying to prevent campus shootings.

So, let me get this straight - a mentally ill man who acquires a gun legally and shoots a representative is the cause for liberalizing gun laws even more?

(April 9, 2011 at 7:38 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: So, let me get this straight - a mentally ill man who acquires a gun legally and shoots a representative is the cause for liberalizing gun laws even more?

Yup...god bless America!

I support this action.

Anything to keep you anti-gun fuckwits from using some mental dumbfuck half way across the country who went bonkers as an excuse to take away my guns.

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

(April 9, 2011 at 7:38 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: So, let me get this straight - a mentally ill man who acquires a gun legally and shoots a representative is the cause for liberalizing gun laws even more?

Well....I would call it "libertarianizing gun laws" but in any case you are correct. Because what we need more than anything else are lots of bullets being sprayed around willy-nilly by people who don't have a fucking clue what is going on.

If people have guns then they will spray bullets willy nilly and none of them have a clue whats going on.

Yeah. Riiiight. Everyone is an idiot or stupid in the world according to Min.

People haven't seen this level of self-righteousness since Jesus.

Im FOR more leeway on second amendment rights, but not for what Min describes. I think allowing citizens to carry is fine (with obvious restrictions of certain places, like govt forums..its only respectful to peaceful discourse to disarm before getting into a heated discussion), I have never had a problem with concealed or open carry, and I personally have something against laws, or licenses dealing with such things.

But I also agree with min. The last thing we need is a public shoot out.

I feel that instead of having all of these gun laws willy nilly, I think that public schools should have a "second amendment" class for the entire year of senior level in highschool. I would also like to have second amendment studies on and off from 7th grade up (preferably when the child reaches 12/13 years of age). this does not mean a shooting course. This would be a basic education of guns, the history of guns in America, what to do when finding a gun left alone, gun safety, etc.. We can use computers to simulate gun experiences (like drivers education)and train our young citizens to become proficient with guns. I know, some of you are against that.

The only problem is that in this "sue them hard" society, we could probably not do this.

I may have said this before. I may be a progressive. When it comes to the second amendment, I am much more supportive than most conservatives of that freedom. I have actually had neo-cons say they opposed my ideas about the second amendment.

Example: Regardless of wether you are a convicted felon or not. As long as you are not incarcerated, I feel that EVERY citizen has the right to own these weapons, out in the open, at any time:
Knives
Swords
Flintlock pistols
flintlock rifles
bayonets for such weapons
axes
any kind of weapon that was available during the writing of the second amendment. This right CANNOT be taken from you unless you are in prison, or in certain sensitive areas (such as public forums, government areas, public schools, etc..)

I feel that this is flat out and obviously the bare intent of the second amendment that cannot be argued against.

Laugh all you want, but these weapons won wars for several hundred years, and can easily stand up well to a small number of offenders.

Oh yeah.... Illegal firearms in the hands of criminals and you want me to only legally have a FLINTLOCK?!

You sir, are truely bonkers.

(April 9, 2011 at 8:28 pm)Dotard Wrote: Oh yeah.... Illegal firearms in the hands of criminals and you want me to only legally have a FLINTLOCK?!

You sir, are truely bonkers.

LOL, thats what I usually hear.

No. I am saying that is the bare minimum, no matter what you did in the past, rights that you have. PERIOD. The federal government should have this regulated as bare minimum law across all states.

Of course I support modern weapons, including fully automatic weapons without special permits or laws.

If you really want to know what I think about the second amendment, then I support all kinds of millitary weapons for all citizens who are not incarcerated. Therefore you should be able to legally carry an m16 with a "thumper" grenade launcher out in the open, casually, except for previously stated sensitive areas. Second amendment rights are NOT taken away from those people who are felons who have completed their terms of punishment (time served, probation served, etc..)

In fact, I think the concept of "felony" should be dumped all together, as it disenfranchises the citizenry. Either you broke the law or you didnt...it doesnt take your rights away regardless except during times of incarceration or probation.
How can someone say "we will let you back into the community, but you cant have your rights"?

Honestly, why not just keep them in prison?

So you have these people, who grew marijuanna, and got caught, are now felons, and are considered "2nd class citizens" now. They cant vote, they cant have guns, but apparently they have their 1st amendment rights..how is it they lose some rights, but not others. Its full of crap to me.

Can someone please explain this mode of thinking to me?