Your view of the second amendment?

Posted by: reece

Comments would be great.

Vote
62 Total Votes
1

Everyone should have a right to an AR-15

44 votes
11 comments
2

Everyone should have a right to a musket

10 votes
1 comment
3

Everyone should have a right to a tactical nuke

8 votes
2 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
reece says2018-02-20T10:38:56.5321362Z
@Mister_Man Modern AR-15 semi-automatics depend on how fast you can pull the trigger for each round. An expert can shoot 3 rounds a second for short periods of time while they can reload in 2-3 seconds flat. Each magazine holds 30 rounds. This brings it to about 160-180 rounds per minute. This exceeds 1000 rounds within 9min. But if you're aiming at targets, then yeah, I would say about 800-900 people could be shot in a crowded area in said time.
reece says2018-02-22T05:38:10.7691205Z
@esd11 If we're staying true to the clause, nukes should be freely open to the public. Don't you agree?
kallielahti says2018-02-22T17:49:22.1205925Z
Not all people should have a right to an ar-15 if you commit a crime or murder someone you should not have an ar-15 or any gun in that case
Mister_Man says2018-02-22T22:33:54.9733542Z
@reece - Yeah that's a good point. If restrictions can be made to disallow weapons from firing that fast, that would be ideal. To me, it all depends on the firing speed. 160-180 a minute is pretty much the absolute maximum for an AR-15 as we're talking about trained experts. I'd say 80-100 is more realistic for the average person, which to me isn't too bad. On a side note, hi again. It's been a while.
reece says2018-02-23T13:30:04.8944530Z
@Mister_Man Also we need to do something about the mentally ill obtaining them.
reece says2018-02-23T13:33:49.9042359Z
Also hi.
ladiesman says2018-02-26T01:47:51.3405627Z
The Second Amendment was written during the late 1700s. They did not have AK-47s, M-16s or AR-15s that could fire hundreds of rounds per minute. They also did not have bump stocks in the 18th century. Guns have changed in the 200 plus years since the Second Amendment was written, so the laws should as well.
reece says2018-02-26T04:54:03.7022813Z
@OllieKay Nine rounds per minute. Now we're talking.
volpittam says2018-03-03T00:52:43.0124887Z
Everyone forgets that the first part of the Second Amendment is a conditional clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". What does this mean? The well regulated militias they were talking about were the colonist's (and then Confederacies from 1776-1789) main defense force until the establishment of a regular army in the mid 19th century. The last of these official ones dissolved by the turn of the 20th century. The ones we see on the political (generally far/alt-right) fringe today (3 Percenters, Light Foot Infantry, etc) are not recognized by their respective states and thus do not have this applied to them. I voted for the musket, as it seems to be the most in holding with the Constitution, but really this amendment no longer applies in the modern world.
Mister_Man says2018-03-03T05:15:36.8153027Z
@Reece - I agree, a comprehensive mental health evaluation should be conducted before anyone buys weapons of any kind. Kind of like obtaining a medical marijuana card from a doctor, it's a card given by a mental health specialist if you pass all the tests or something.
reece says2018-03-03T06:16:13.5965027Z
@Mister_Man Alright, you've baited me. I don't think marijuana is equivalent to firearms. Medical marijuana comes in many forms including non-THC oils. I am socially libertarian when it comes to marijuana.
faceinthecrowd says2018-03-04T15:54:40.9233006Z
Although the first part of the Second Amendment mentions the militia, the second part is clear: the right to bear arms belongs to the People, not militias. See the 1st 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th Amendments - the rights are to the People.
Mister_Man says2018-03-04T23:11:08.2286071Z
@Reece - I'm not saying Marijuana is equivalent to firearms, lol. I'm just saying a similar method of acquiring the ability to purchase it could be helpful. In Canada anyway, you need to apply for an actual medical marijuana card from a registered physician, pass tests and whatnot. A similar technique could be used for buying guns, don't sell to anyone who hasn't obtained a card from a registered psychiatric doctor after passing multiple mental health tests.
reece says2018-03-05T06:00:10.4753326Z
@Mister_Man You're a bit to the left of me on this position to be honest lol. Maybe if their background check comes back red.
sadolite says2018-03-19T21:29:57.3234667Z
Already have an AR -15 now it's up to you to come and get it if you want to take it away. Don't send your govt goon squads with guns to come take my gun. You come personally. Practice what you propose. Don't send the govt send civilians to confiscate guns. That is if you aren't a coward.
reece says2018-03-19T22:17:02.0778667Z
@sadolite I'd rather the govt do it. You sound mentally unstable.
Mister_Man says2018-03-19T23:43:27.5068986Z
Rekt
sadolite says2018-03-20T00:19:04.7022667Z
Reece It is those who would propose to take my rights that should be incharge of taking them. Only a coward would hide behind someone with a gun to take them.
reece says2018-03-20T01:31:44.9334667Z
@sadolite You don't sound well organised in the head.
Mister_Man says2018-03-20T02:37:14.1286703Z
@Sadolite - I actually understand what you're saying. However the government makes the final say and they decide whether or not to take away our rights to own firearms, not citizens, as much as they'd support the government taking away our guns. If it got to the point where civilians formed factions and tried to steal our guns, we could fight them then, but the Government has the final say.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.