Uh, yeah, hello: Because if there was no Second Amendment, there WOULD BE NO CRIME! Its repeal is long overdue. Mark my words, the INSTANT we repeal the Second Amendment, crime rates across the board will drop to zero across the nation (adjusted for time zones, of course).

God, is everybody else too stupid to see this?

floor9: God, is everybody else too stupid to see this?

Have you ever bbeen to Chicago? Holy shiat dude, we really do NOT need handguns to be legal here.

floor9: Uh, yeah, hello: Because if there was no Second Amendment, there WOULD BE NO CRIME! Its repeal is long overdue. Mark my words, the INSTANT we repeal the Second Amendment, crime rates across the board will drop to zero across the nation (adjusted for time zones, of course).

God, is everybody else too stupid to see this?

Don't worry, we know. Janet Reno is camped at the end of your block, waiting to take away your .30-06, and her.. what was the favorite phrase? "jack-booted storm troopers"? would have already knocked down your door, if they could only figure out what time your wife left for her scrapbooking convention.

MisterTweak: Janet Reno would have already knocked down your door, if they could only figure out what time your wife left for her scrapbooking convention.

And as long as my fiendish plans continue unabated, THEY'LL NEVER KNOW!

Brodan: Have you ever bbeen to Chicago? Holy shiat dude, we really do NOT need handguns to be legal here.

Um, up until last week, they weren't. How'd that work out for ya?

Ever notice that "they" are only "activist judges" when "they" make a ruling you don't like.

Brodan: floor9: God, is everybody else too stupid to see this?

Have you ever bbeen to Chicago? Holy shiat dude, we really do NOT need handguns to be legal here.

Because there are so many crimes committed there with legally owned handguns?

Brodan: floor9: God, is everybody else too stupid to see this?

Have you ever bbeen to Chicago? Holy shiat dude, we really do NOT need handguns to be legal here.

so do you really think that all those criminals will suddenly dump their guns if the 2nd amendment was repealed?

floor9: Uh, yeah, hello: Because if there was no Second Amendment, there WOULD BE NO CRIME! Its repeal is long overdue. Mark my words, the INSTANT we repeal the Second Amendment, crime rates across the board will drop to zero across the nation (adjusted for time zones, of course).

God, is everybody else too stupid to see this?

I can't believe people actually think you are serious.

Ok guys, why not just make fully automatic guns legal then as well, I mean what's the difference anyway, right?

I don't think ANYONE should have guns, period.

But here's another statistic: Approximately 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.

Guns don't kill people . . . .

Brodan: Ok guys, why not just make fully automatic guns legal then as well, I mean what's the difference anyway, right?

I don't think ANYONE should have guns, period.

They should all have unicorns instead! Whee!

TFA: We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don't have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that's prohibited within the city.

It's called "burying the lead."

Brodan: I don't think ANYONE should have guns, period.

You'll get my pistol when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

Brodan: Ok guys, why not just make fully automatic guns legal then as well,

They are. They are just subject to taxation and greater regulation.

Ok guys, why not just make fully automatic guns legal then as well, I mean what's the difference anyway, right?

there's a big difference and you know it

I don't think ANYONE should have guns, period.

and i want peace on earth. but it's not happening. there are 200 million guns in america already. the only way to get rid of them is to send the government door to door and confiscate them. is that an America you want?

How many of you have had to defend your home with a gun from intruders? That never farking happens. How many people get shot in other crimes? Let's compare numbers.

2wheeljunkie: Brodan: Ok guys, why not just make fully automatic guns legal then as well,

They are. They are just subject to taxation and greater regulation.

And legally-owned fully-automatic weapons are simply not used in crimes in any significant number. Illegally-owned ones account for about two percent of criminal shootings, a quick Google perusal shows. Doesn't stop people from freaking out over "assault weapons."

Brodan: How many of you have had to defend your home with a gun from intruders? That never farking happens

estimates are that it happens 2 million times a year. you don't hear about it because the vast majority of the times it is only the homeowner or victim showing their gun and the criminal is gone.

actually, i can cite a case reported in my local newspaper where it happened just recently. and elderly couple, too. shouldn't they have the right to protect themselves from a burglar who is no doubt younger and stronger?

albo: there's a big difference and you know it

I was being facetious.

albo: and i want peace on earth. but it's not happening. there are 200 million guns in america already. the only way to get rid of them is to send the government door to door and confiscate them. is that an America you want?

I don't want the America we already have.

Brodan: I don't want the America we already have.

but we all live in reality, not "what should be."

wishing something to happen that in no stretch of the imagination is ever going to happen is a waste of time and energy.

Brodan: How many of you have had to defend your home with a gun from intruders? That never farking happens. How many people get shot in other crimes? Let's compare numbers.

The problem isn't that, it's the complete idiocy of your trolltastic statement. Are you going to ban hunting rifles? Better get used to hitting a lot of deer when you visit Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota then as hunters are necessary to keep the population down.

And yes, I have used an AR-15 to defend myself. (Not loaded.) Some idiot thought I wasn't at home in my apartment. He walked in claiming to be a maint. man. I picked up Maybelline, he took one look at me, apologized, and walked out.

I really don't have time or interest to argue with gun nuts today. There are far far FAR more murders and robberies and suicides and accidents due to guns than are prevented. Nothing good ever comes out of the barrel of a gun.

albo: but we all live in reality, not "what should be."

America was built on idealism, not reality.

SpillyFarker: The problem isn't that, it's the complete idiocy of your trolltastic statement.

You don't know me, I am not trolling, I am not an idiot, and I for CERTAIN know that you hicks don't know what real crime is in an urban environment.

Chicago does not need handguns. I'm out.

Brodan: Have you ever bbeen to Chicago? Holy shiat dude, we really do NOT need handguns to be legal here.

Damm straight, criminals and police HATE armed citizens. It makes their raping and pillaging of the populace that much harder. Best to let only the police and gang bangers have guns.

Seriously, have you ever stopped to wonder WHY there is such a violence problem? Its not the guns. I own over 40 myself and have never killed anyone. I know plenty of other people who own plenty of guns and have never killed anyone. So, it can't be the guns themselves that are causing the killing.

Could it be because of our failed War on (some) Drugs? If Bayer and Pfizer have a disagreement over product infringement, what do they do? Send their top dollar lawyers to court to duke it out.

What happens when the South Side Rollers and the 5th Street gang have a disagreement? They sent out their top thugs to go beat and kill their competitors. This will happen with whatever weapon is most convenient, be it a gun, baseball bat, fists, hammers, rope, gasoline and lighter, rat poison, etc.

Drugs are not going away. This is a drug prohibition problem you have in Chicago, not a gun problem. Blaming it on guns is a convenient way for the politicians to shift blame from themselves and their failed policies to an inanimate object.

You have three choices to regulate drugs.

Let the government regulate it.
Let private industry regulate it.
Let criminals regulate it.

That's it. Those are the three choices you have. We currently CHOOSE to let the criminals regulate it.

Most people would not use drugs, even if they were legal. A recent Zogby poll confirms that.

Link (new window)
Zogby polling data asked 1,028 likely voters, "If
hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized, would you
be likely to use them?" Ninety-ninety percent of respondents
answered, "No." Only 0.6 percent said "Yes." The remaining 0.4
percent weren't sure.

So only .6% said they would if they were legal. Chances are, most of that .6% already do. Most people who use drugs move on to become productive members of society. (I know I did.) Despite being illegal drugs are incredibly easy to get. There were plentiful in high school for me. Oddly enough, the hardest drug to get in high school was alcohol and tobacco.

/leap.cc (new window)

Brodan: I for CERTAIN know that you hicks don't know what real crime is in an urban environment.

No, you don't.

Brodan: You don't know me, I am not trolling, I am not an idiot, and I for CERTAIN know that you hicks don't know what real crime is in an urban environment.

Yeah, I'm a hick from Michigan who lives in a city of 6 million in Texas. Yes, I know what crime is jack ass. That was a trolltastic statement - you knew it was and you said it anyway. Either leave the thread or defend your statement.

Brodan: Nothing good ever comes out of the barrel of a gun.

That depends what you put into the barrel of the gun. Like, you could use it as the world's coolest Pez dispenser.

Brodan: How many of you have had to defend your home with a gun from intruders? That never farking happens. How many people get shot in other crimes? Let's compare numbers.

Me me. I said it twice because I've done it twice.

I still have a citation (as in ticket) from the San Diego PD for discharging a firearm in city limits. They issued me a ticket, they arrested the two guys I chased off. Both were in the emergency room, one getting #6 bird shot from a 20 gage removed from his chest and face, the other was getting stitched-up after running through a sliding door.

The Waukegan PD did not even bother to issue me a citation, but the never caught the perps either.

Brodan: Nothing good ever comes out of the barrel of a gun.

Brodan: floor9: God, is everybody else too stupid to see this?

Have you ever bbeen to Chicago? Holy shiat dude, we really do NOT need handguns to be legal here.

Weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens? Madness!

/Put mandatory gun safety and shooting classes in school, and the state has twelve years to teach children how to be well-regulated.
//I'd rather have been plinking at a target than playing badminton, anyway.

Brodan: How many of you have had to defend your home with a gun from intruders? That never farking happens.

How many people:

a) Wish they did have a gun when their home was broken into by intruders?

b) Didn't have a gun and ended up being killed in a home invasion robbery?

That's really what is important.

Snarfangel: Weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens? Madness!

/Put mandatory gun safety and shooting classes in school, and the state has twelve years to teach children how to be well-regulated.

That's worked so well in Afghanistan, where by law, all homes must have a gun.

200 years later and we are still arguing about what the 2nd amendment means.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Repealing the amendment is not necessary... but it could help if the language of the amendment was made clearer. Of all of the amendments to the Constitution it is the most ambiguously written and open to definition of them all.

One school of thought suggests that the first and second clause of the amendment sets the entire amendment as being defined as the right of state militias to keep and bear arms.

Another school of thought suggests that the first and second amendment are qualifiers to justify the third clause, thereby giving people personal rights to bear arms.

The problem being that the first school of thought all but ignores the third clause, and the second school of thought assumes that the first and second clauses are nothing but flavor text. As it stands the Constitution has very little in the way of flowery poetry except in the preamble. There is a great economy of words observed in all of the articles and first ten amendments so as to make them easy to understand. Well... all except the second amendment which seems to have gone through so many changes and edits while it was being debated so as to let the reader create their own definition as to what the amendment means.

"By virtue of this decision, Chicago's 1982 ban on handguns is not likely to survive a court challenge."
and yet daley will waste tons of money fighting it
sigh

Brodan: Have you ever bbeen to Chicago? Holy shiat dude, we really do NOT need handguns to be legal here.

um, yah, lived her all my life
there has been exactly NO change since the ban
criminals still have guns
people still leave them out where kiddies can play with them
people still use guns to commit suicide
people still do drive by shootings

no wait, since the ban, we have had to put metal detectors in schools ....
so .... did the BAN cause there to be more violence /??

or
are guns a symptom of something else??
what else happened ~1980 ???
oh yes the great and powerful war on drugs

legalize ALL DRUGS PERIOD
and the violent gun death supported by the black market will go to zero

I hope Brodan didn't really split; this was gonna get good.

Brodan: I for CERTAIN know that you hicks don't know what real crime is in an urban environment

This will certainly keep things civil.

KaponoFor3: How many people:

a) Wish they did have a gun when their home was broken into by intruders?

b) Didn't have a gun and ended up being killed in a home invasion robbery?

That's really what is important.

No, in the interests of intellectual honest (yes, I know this is Fark), you must look at all the permutations:

Home broken into, didn't have gun, and were killed _____
Home broken into, had gun, and were killed _____
Home broken into, didn't have gun, weren't killed ____
Home broken into, had gun, weren't killed _____
Home not broken into, didn't have gun, were killed (domestic violence) _____
Home not broken into, had gun, were killed ____
Home not broken into, didn't have gun, weren't killed ____
Home not broken into, had gun, weren't killed ____

Fill those in with per capita amounts, and we can have an honest discussion. Otherwise, you're only looking at 1 blank.

floor9: Uh, yeah, hello: Because if there was no Second Amendment, there WOULD BE NO CRIME! Its repeal is long overdue. Mark my words, the INSTANT we repeal the Second Amendment, crime rates across the board will drop to zero across the nation (adjusted for time zones, of course).

God, is everybody else too stupid to see this?

Wow, do you honestly think that the crime rate would drop to zero. When was the last time you left your house and paid attention to the real world.

1. There are plenty of crimes that do not involve firearms of any kind, such as any white collar crimes. (embezzlement, blackmail, forgery, ect.)

2. Even violent crimes can be carried out without the use of a firearm. Last time I checked, knifes, baseball bats, golf clubs, brass knuckles, pillows, and various poisons and chemicals can also be fatal.

3. Changing a law to make all guns Illegal, will only cause people who respect the laws, in the first place, to give up their guns. Where I am from, most of the guns used in crimes are not legally obtained anyway. All de-legalizing firearms would do is make the victims of criminals unarmed and unable to equally (it is not my problem if the criminal has a knife and I have gun, I think it's better to be better armed than the criminals are anyway) defend themselves from criminals with guns.

This being said I submit the following photo for your thoughts and reviews.



Feel free to throw in your argument of; if you have gun it's more likely to be stolen from you used against you. IMHO I would rather stand some chance rather than no chance, as if I was unarmed.

Wake up and realize that crime will be part of the world as long as people are lazy and greedy. No matter what you do there will always be criminals and they will not follow any law that society puts on the books. It's as simple as laws only affect the law abiders.

I am not trying to argue for an govermentless/lawless society. Just some common sense when it comes the application of new laws and proper enforcement and punishment, for breaking, of existing laws.

Repealing the 2nd amendment would increase crime long before it would ever cause guns to completely disappear from the USA.

I did enjoy the reference to the 2nd amendment in the article as being an "anachronism." that just goes to show how much the writer doesn't understand anything outside of his/her life. The 2nd amendment is just as important now as it was back in 1776. I hope one day that the writer will understand why this is, which would be a topic for another thread, as I can only imagine the arguments that would arise from that discussion.

Take this how you will, but thats my two cents.

Theaetetus: Snarfangel: Weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens? Madness!

/Put mandatory gun safety and shooting classes in school, and the state has twelve years to teach children how to be well-regulated.

That's worked so well in Afghanistan, where by law, all homes must have a gun.

They teach gun safety in Afghanistan? That's pretty cool.

Brodan: I don't think ANYONE should have guns, period.

what you THINK, has NOTHING to do with what is LEGAL

it is LEGAL for almsot EVERYONE in the US to own a hand gun, shot gun, rifle

the fact that your opinion is different does not change the constitution
CHANGE the constitution
be done with it

/of course, that will never happen

lodferret: missing the point of the post

Okay, that was pretty good.

a militia armed with handguns isn't going to be a very effective militia.

Theaetetus: Home not broken into, didn't have gun, were killed (domestic violence) _____
Home not broken into, had gun, were killed ____

Here's one clue:
When the relationship between offender and victim was known, about 25 percent of murders occurred between strangers. Roughly 22 percent of murders were between family members. In 53 percent of murders the offender and victim were acquaintances.

About 75 percent of murders are going to fall into that "home not broken into" category.

lodferret: Wow, do you honestly think that the crime rate would drop to zero. When was the last time you left your house and paid attention to the real world.

He was being sarcastic I think. :)

Well, in theory we could all become really good at archery.

SpillyFarker: lodferret: Wow, do you honestly think that the crime rate would drop to zero. When was the last time you left your house and paid attention to the real world.

He was being sarcastic I think. :)

Yea, I realize that now. Had a little Weeners tunnel vision there, but, I think I got my point across regardless.

Then I forgot it replaces f i r s t c o m m e n t with weeners. which just makes that funnier yet.

dinkalicious: I hope Brodan didn't really split; this was gonna get good.

nah he was being intellectually dishonest
since guns have been banned in chicago
we have had one of the highest crime death rates (sure got better lately)
we have had criminal police hit/robbery squads (not kidding)

being able to defend my home might get me shot and killed by a cop, BUT it also means that those same cops might think twice about robbing me