Exactly.



So is technology/communication/etc, but that doesn't mean the 1st Amendment applies only to printing presses.

You can't murder somebody with words or phone calls or blogs. You can't even injure someone, at least not physically. Unless you print it can give them a paper cut... But correct me if I'm wrong, but there weren't many concealable weapons in the 1700's... and the guns that did exist could only be fired once before having to be reloaded with the powder and wadding and bullet. I doubt the founding fathers ever imagined a gun that could fire 30 rounds in a few seconds and can be safely hidden under your jacket.

You show me a weapon that conceals well and has a 30 round capacity. That's a big magazine, Vinnie. And I think you're confidence that the founding fathers never imagined a semi-automatic (or even fully automatic) weapon is misplaced. The men were inventors and innovators. Who do you think was developing the weapons they were using to defend our liberties back then? Do you assume that they thought they had created the best weapon that ever would exist? Of course not. Critical thinkers constantly seek to improve.

The advent of the semi-automatic weapon was born in the 1880s, 100 years after the signing of the declaration of independence. Little more than a single lifetime.... There were people not only imagining, but probably designing and attempting semi-automatic weapons when the founding fathers were still alive and kicking.

Beside that, the purpose of the amendment was to provide a clause that allowed a citizen to defend himself, and provided for the establishment of a "well-regulated militia".

The point is that a citizen should be allowed a weapon to defend himself in the appropriate situation. Obviously, this could not be limited to the weapons of the day, as attempting to defend ones home or family with a flint-lock musket would be extremely ineffective. Like Yecti said, the men knew better things were coming. They certainly never expected for technology to continue to advance, yet for the citizens to be running about with muzzle-loaders. In the context of the second amendment, as weapons technology advances, so does (or should) the privileges of a citizen.

Please note that I am not advocating or supporting extreme gun-nut propaganda. I don't really want every numb skull in the country having fully automatic weapons or powerful explosives; only that there be a balance struck that provides maximum safety for all citizens, which is what the framers of the constitution also wanted.

Having said that, I don't like the idea of Kirby having a gun. He's emotionally unstable.

Except you CAN propagate hate speech and similar material that could incite violence fast and easier with the internet and airwaves. Except there IS the possibility to push ill will to a certain group of people or minority by generating social antagonism toward them via widespread media. Except you could, in theory, spark a detrimental and malicious uprising against the establishment by easily coordinating among people and corrupting public opinion through high-speed communication.

Numerous countries ban hate speech so America is obviously in the wrong, no?

But he'd need help to operate the action of any pistol, so at the very least there'd be two people involved in any decision-making process.

>=^(

You could probably find a .22 pistol that has a light enough action but it wouldn't put down someone you'd need a gun to stop.

I can't think of anything kirby could wrap his sausage fingers around that wouldn't break his hand.


I'm also preparing to roll my eyes at the I stopped a bank heist and beat up this bank robber before bench pressing the vault off of an innocent but world weary teenager after giving a lecture to everyone until they all cried thread

While I am opposed to the gun idea I'm going to say get some sort of .22 since thats what some guy used to shoot homicide in the arse.

You mean 3 people. You have to remember how JediKirby posted when he first came here.

I know people mean things in good humor but, unless Kirby disagrees, I think jokes regarding his condition, for lack of a better word, should stop.



What the founding fathers did envision was a government that would seek to disarm its citizens. Let's forget the fact that for well over a hundred years after the founding it was quite acceptable to openly carry guns. Now everybody would freakout if you openly had a pistol strapped to your hip.

Case in point.

That article raises an important point. It is not in choosing when and where to carry a gun for self-defense, it is ALWAYS carrying a gun for that purpose. The typical person will most likely never become a victim of a violent crime. But people are victims of violent crimes in places where they would never anticipate it. That would be part of the thought process of a predator as they ambush their unsuspecting prey. Being prepared to defend yourself or your family means ALWAYS being prepared. Whether the choice be to respond with a weapon or not. Now there are valid arguments for or against the actual carry of a weapon but it is not the place of government to place unreasonable limits on such.

I know in Utah you can openly carry a handgun without a permit simply because there is no law against it. They are working in the legislature to explicitly allow it. Texas is doing the same thing. Of course, I think anyone who open carries is an idiot. If you do get into a rough situation, you may end up getting taken out pre-emptively.

You can also open carry without a permit in New Hampshire, Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Maine..that's just what I recall offhand. Not many people do, though- concealed is a better option.

There should be no need to explicitly allow it, the second amendment pretty much already does.

Sir, I salute you. You're a true hero.

Don't lie, you'd still harass any open carrier you saw even though it's perfectly legal.

only because JLee is corrupt

i hear he even breaks up high school parties just so he can confiscate their kegs and drugs for personal use

I feel sorrry for countries where it's legal to carry guns. There are virtually no shootings in countries where guns are illegal. You don't need a gun if no-one else has one.

Wow, that's dumber than anything I've ever said.

Yeah, maybe no shootings but everything else increases. Think about it. House robbery? Piece of cake. Guy and his wife walking in the park, no problem. Car jackings? Like a hot knife through butter.

Hell I'd carry a gun even if it was illegal in the US. Like I said, stupid not to when you or your family is threatened with deadly force.

The U.S. has many gun-free zones. Most universities, for example. When shootings take place in these areas, dozens of people die before police even arrive.

You're basically inviting every psychotic criminal (protip: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns) to shoot at fish in a barrel.

If people were allowed to carry in these areas, the lunatic would get killed before he'd be able to kill many people.

Sorry a_person, the art died with Swift.

Being from a country where guns have been ilegal since the mid-90s I have to say this is bollocks.

Would a gun like this suit?

I thought this said "What Gum" and was expecting a poll with favorite gum options.

Guns have always been illegal in my country and there's virtually no crime compared to america. If someone gets murdered, it's a major news item/front page on the news paper.

That said it would be pointless to outlaw guns in america because there's to many people who have them.

What country are you from?

It doesn't matter. Whatever country he's from only has a fraction of the population of the U.S. Thus, it's no surprise that murder is bigger news there.

New Zealand, I'm aware that our population is nothing compared to the us but peopleare just generally alot more peaceful when they don't have access to guns. The only people to look out for are crackheads.

so guns are illegal in new zealand...

then this guy is in trouble

should make note that his machine guns are complete and functional

Guns aren't illegal in NZ. Only handguns, military style semi automatics and full automatic weapons.
One could pretty much have as many rifles and shotguns as you could wish.

Which thankfully aren't that concealable.

go back to my last post... that guy had plenty of handguns, military semi-auto and full-auto

he's stated in that thread that the full autos are legal to own but not legal to fire and certain parts must be removed and stored separately

and i'd assume his semi-autos are legal to fire based on his videos at gunpics.net