Should the 2nd Amendment be Repealed?

[Minister of Truth]

The following trolls all voted in this poll:

< ( " . "<), Barbara Boxer, Bhopal, callinectes, faiskeoadave, Guest, H Andrew Romanoff, HUGH G DIPSHITZ, inetryconydot, irdisputable, Joe Sestak, Joe Wilson, Kim Jong il, Meat is Murder, nopEnfonefoef, President Barack Obama, President Sarah Palin, Rohrer 714, Southern Woman, Threadrater, V For Vendetta, waterrnark, yellow_fellow, yellow_peril, YOUNI, Zurt

 

[DeMartMan]

It's always possible

I think this poll is being rigged.

Being I don't have the time to generate large enough numbers to get a good result on the C -n- C poll I have made several smaller ones and up till now they have all been between 30%-40% yes and between 60% - 70% No. I attributed the 40% to a split between those who want it rewritten (one to protect the individual right to carry a gun and the other to make it a lot harder) but I really don't know. It's always possible that someone has found a way around the polling.

 

[DeMartMan]

That doesn't make sense

No shit, else it would be public. As it stands this poll is invalid.

That doesn't make sense, did I set the poll up wrong some how. This was the first one for here.

 

[Good Luck]

"Possible"? You could poll the Brady Foundation and not get 80% who want to repeal the 2nd. Mindless liberal twits think it's cool to make up multiple IDs so they can pretend others actually agree with their nonsense.

 

[/MSG/]

That doesn't make sense, did I set the poll up wrong some how. This was the first one for here.

You have an option when you set up polls to make votes public. This is done to show when Legion, our local troll of 1,000 names, votes.

 

[DeMartMan]

my whole quote

Exactly how would background checks, waiting periods, licencing or registration have prevented the tragedy of the kids playing with an unsecured gun?

Perhaps you should have included my whole quote and then you would have had your answer without having to ask it.

 

[Minister of Truth]

That doesn't make sense, did I set the poll up wrong some how. This was the first one for here.

Whenever you wish to create a valid poll on this site, you need to check the box "make this a public poll," because it allows us to view which posters voted for what options. Otherwise the trolls will come and vote, like they did on this poll, rendering it useless.

 

[/MSG/]

Perhaps you should have included my whole quote and then you would have had your answer without having to ask it.

Yeah, no your post didn't answer his question.

 

[Good Luck]

That doesn't make sense, did I set the poll up wrong some how. This was the first one for here.

By making the poll public, we can see who voted which way. It discourages trolls from using their multiple IDs to flood the poll since everyone will recognize their stupidity. And if they still flood it, you can discount the trolls to get a more accurate result.

 

[DeMartMan]

Absolutely, unequivocally not. The first two amendments are absolutely essential to a free society. The first amendment covers freedom of speech, to assure the right to criticize government and discuss alternate solutions than those the government supports. It also covers the right to a free press, for people cannot function freely unless they have free access to information.

And the 2nd Amendment was designed to assure that the people also retain the freedom to enforce themselves on government should the need arise. We can discuss all the touchy feely fineness of a free society being a peaceful society and how violence begets violence, etc. But in the end, all of human history shows one inescapable truth: violence, and the ability to wage violence, has more REAL political authority than any other factor. If we haven't the authority to back up our desires against a recalcitrant government, then we will, eventually, end up obedient to a tyranny. It is not by accident that all tyrannies control their people's access to firearms.

As to when it is "right" to carry a firearm, that is just more fear mongering by the anti-gun twits. "they have the right to carry, but is it right to do so?" <--absurd. Why would it be wrong to do so? Because of others irrational fears? The mere presence of a firearms comprises zero danger to anyone else at the park or elsewhere. Those who intend harm with their firearm are not going to be stopped by neither societal customs nor laws - and that includes those idiot laws that tell us who may own what under what circumstances. The vast majority who have no ill intent for their firearm (or any other means of violence) are not the threat and it is stupid to assume that they are the ones who need to curb their behavior. Honest citizens bearing firearms do not do so out of fear, and anti-gun twits have no reasonable excuse to demand they refrain from doing so because of their irrational fears.

If you think it an irrational fear, tell me then why can't you carry a gun into a prison to visit someone. I mean, could you find yourself in a more dangerous place?

 

[/MSG/]

If you think it an irrational fear, tell me then why can't you carry a gun into a prison to visit someone. I mean, could you find yourself in a more dangerous place?

I'm pretty sure GL would say we SHOULD be able to carry to prisons, among other places. Why should the gov have a monopoly on force?

 

[DeMartMan]

Poll has been revealed as invalid.

No, it hasn't, but I doubt the results thus far, I am assuming that there are more than 8 people here that support leaving the Constitution alone. For the record I voted no on the poll. Give it time, I suspect that it will turn out like the other about 30% yes and 70% no.

 

[Minister of Truth]

No, it hasn't, but I doubt the results thus far, I am assuming that there are more than 8 people here that support leaving the Constitution alone. For the record I voted no on the poll. Give it time, I suspect that it will turn out like the other about 30% yes and 70% no.

It will not. At least 25 trolls voted in this poll, as per my earlier posts. Grind, Damo, and Soc can give us the exact numbers...

 

[/MSG/]

No, it hasn't, but I doubt the results thus far, but I am assuming that there are more than 8 people here that support leaving the Constitution alone. For the record I voted no on the poll. Give it time, I suspect that it will turn out like the other about 30% yes and 70% no.

No, the poll IS invalid. The vast majority of those polled are a single vote from a user with multiple names. Invalid.

 

[DeMartMan]

I like you but come on

The following trolls all voted in this poll:

< ( " . "<), Barbara Boxer, Bhopal, callinectes, faiskeoadave, Guest, H Andrew Romanoff, HUGH G DIPSHITZ, inetryconydot, irdisputable, Joe Sestak, Joe Wilson, Kim Jong il, Meat is Murder, nopEnfonefoef, President Barack Obama, President Sarah Palin, Rohrer 714, Southern Woman, Threadrater, V For Vendetta, waterrnark, yellow_fellow, yellow_peril, YOUNI, Zurt

Barbara Boxer and the President... I want you to know that they are personally promised me that they will only post on the C -n-C boards.

 

[Good Luck]

If you think it an irrational fear, tell me then why can't you carry a gun into a prison to visit someone. I mean, could you find yourself in a more dangerous place?

Could you possibly make less sense?

Yes, it is an irrational fear. A person does not, in general, fear everyone around them because some stranger might punch them in the nose, do they? At most they are ambivalent toward the people around them as a threat (not counting office rivalry....). So why should this change just because the same people who have no desire to punch them in the nose might be carrying a firearm? The very thought of a stranger changes from ambivalence to fear just because a firearm may be involved. Yet these same people suddenly feared by anti-gun nozzles have no more desire to shoot anyone than they wish to punch someone in the nose. The only thing that has changed is the attitude toward them just because of a gun that is no threat. Yep, pretty much a textbook irrational fear.

 

[DeMartMan]

My Point Here Is

"Possible"? You could poll the Brady Foundation and not get 80% who want to repeal the 2nd. Mindless liberal twits think it's cool to make up multiple IDs so they can pretend others actually agree with their nonsense.

Let's try to keep this all on a friendly note as I haven't seen anyone making any mindless post, a few silly ones. As I said I have this poll running on a few boards and up to now they all are about 30% yes, which is higher than I expected. You can check the one on the C -n- C at http://christianityandtheconfusion.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2010/8/30/4617277.html

I wasn't pushing for gun control, or repealing the 2nd Amendment. What I was saying is that taking anything away from the Constitution (even rewriting it) is a bad idea. What some on the right miss it that by repealing the 14th Amendment (which is being promoted by some prominent Republicans), or deny parts of the 1st to anyone (as some want to do to Muslims who only want to build a Mosque), you endanger your 2nd Amendment rights. If you deny 1st Amendment rights to a Muslim then someone else is going to deny your 2nd Amendment rights; and soon we won't have any rights. If you repeal the 14th Amendment to deny citizenship to brown babies you are endangering your own precious 2nd Amendment. Even the NRA has come out in support of the 14th Amendment realizing that it help the 2nd, unfortunately some people in those Tea parties have been beguiled by smooth talking politicians. We can deal with our illegal immigration problem without destroying our rights. Yes, each one does have some limitations such as shouting fire (when there is none) or promoting assignations isn’t protected speech, the 1st Amendment doesn’t allow for any speech, just like our freedom of religion doesn’t allow anyone to have human scarify. In the same way there are limits to the 2nd, (here is where I turn everyone against me) the Left is wrong to classify these people as gun nuts, with little manhood and as such should have all their guns taken away. (mine you that there really aren’t that many going that far.) And the right is wrong to promote the myth that guns belong everywhere and wrong to try to scare the right-wing crazies that the left-wing crazies are going to take their guns away from them. It is equally wrong to promote taking anyone’s rights away from them, whether it is the 1st, 2nd or 14th Amendment. It's as the old saying goes, "an injury to one is an injury to all." Just because I don't own a firearm doesn't mean it is a good idea to take the right away from someone else. The next right to go may be one that I hold dear. This is my point in all of these. Lastly, there are those who read only a title or half read it and think they know the thinking of the author, this should prove them wrong. Even though I asked the question of "Should the 2nd Amendment be repealed?" I never advocated the repealing of any Constitutional Amendments. Those seeing asking a question as promoting the repeal of the 2nd Amendment are acting on an irrational fear that their guns are going to be taken away, just like the irrational fear of brown babies and Muslims. We Americans are better than that, so pull it together.

 

[WinterBorn]

Absolutely, unequivocally not. The first two amendments are absolutely essential to a free society. The first amendment covers freedom of speech, to assure the right to criticize government and discuss alternate solutions than those the government supports. It also covers the right to a free press, for people cannot function freely unless they have free access to information.

And the 2nd Amendment was designed to assure that the people also retain the freedom to enforce themselves on government should the need arise. We can discuss all the touchy feely fineness of a free society being a peaceful society and how violence begets violence, etc. But in the end, all of human history shows one inescapable truth: violence, and the ability to wage violence, has more REAL political authority than any other factor. If we haven't the authority to back up our desires against a recalcitrant government, then we will, eventually, end up obedient to a tyranny. It is not by accident that all tyrannies control their people's access to firearms.

As to when it is "right" to carry a firearm, that is just more fear mongering by the anti-gun twits. "they have the right to carry, but is it right to do so?" <--absurd. Why would it be wrong to do so? Because of others irrational fears? The mere presence of a firearms comprises zero danger to anyone else at the park or elsewhere. Those who intend harm with their firearm are not going to be stopped by neither societal customs nor laws - and that includes those idiot laws that tell us who may own what under what circumstances. The vast majority who have no ill intent for their firearm (or any other means of violence) are not the threat and it is stupid to assume that they are the ones who need to curb their behavior. Honest citizens bearing firearms do not do so out of fear, and anti-gun twits have no reasonable excuse to demand they refrain from doing so because of their irrational fears.

Well said!

 

[WinterBorn]

Perhaps you should have included my whole quote and then you would have had your answer without having to ask it.

The only pertinent info I did not include was "training". Not leaving a loaded gun, or a gun and ammunition, out where it is accessible by children is common sense not training.

The tragic accident is terrible. But it stems from stupidity on the part of teh gun owner. Restrictions on the other 60 million gun owners because of the stupidity of a handful is nonsense.

 

[DeMartMan]

How can you ask a question with

The only pertinent info I did not include was "training". Not leaving a loaded gun, or a gun and ammunition, out where it is accessible by children is common sense not training.

The tragic accident is terrible. But it stems from stupidity on the part of teh gun owner. Restrictions on the other 60 million gun owners because of the stupidity of a handful is nonsense.

How can you ask a question with partial information? If you read my whole unedited post you have your answer but you.