Staredit Network

im cant remeber off the top of my head what no. the adment the goverment broke but i know what it is.

For example in cali your not aloud to have guns but the adments say we are allowed to have them and no one can ever change that.

and the gangs down in cali still get guns and they start killing us.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how is that supposed to create discussion?

Oh and BTW don't be surprised if the gov. is being stupid. That's nothing new, you know...

when it says "the right to bare arms" it means to serve in the armed forces, not to own a gun......

Zombie, please, for the love of god work on your spelling. I don't want to have to decipher posts, even thought they're technically in English.

Anyway, back on topic, in California are all guns banned? Because that is unconstitutional. Surely you're allowed to carry some types of firearms. Secondly, gangs are stupid. They're comprised of bumbling idiots that know how to murder people, and they don't even do it eloquently. They hold no value to society, none whatsoever. They deface buildings and have drag races. If I could lock all of them away in prison forever, society would be better for it.

Corrections:
"Bare" - Bear
"Goverment" - Government
"alout" - Allowed
"cali" - California
"adment" - Amendment
"no." - Number
" " - ,
"i" - I

My 2 Cents:

We are allowed to own guns, hell, we don't even need to register them. But if they are used in a malicious way, they should be confiscated/limited. Only for those who abuse it.

Bearing arms, means that we do not need a standing army in our nation. We can defend ourselves from ourselves. A standing army would only complicate things, like when Brittan had their soldiers control us as colonists.

It's a good idea, but it's impossible to write a law like that.

Writing it is possible. Enforcing it is not.

spelling is gay.

Amendment II
"A well regulated militia,beubg becessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

this topic is ment to create a discussion about this topic. i find it very serious. our forfathers made these amendments for a reason. but half of the time the goverment and the president breakes these.

We've gone over this before in the really long topics about the war on terrorism.

Saftey is defined differently by every individual.There are too many people in America for everyone to be happy.

The way the government is keeping us safe is fine. All we lose is our reps in the world, but to my knowledge dead men don't carry reputations with them...

Besides, what if this is all a scam placed by the government to keep our eyes off of something else? There are many extremists in America; one of them could easily go AWOL, and suddenly their mug is plastered all over the news instead of something that the government doesn't want us to see.

---------

Another unrelated note to what I just said:
I'd like to see proof of cali not being allowed to have a gun.

more like 1 and 1/2 cents, mine was right with bare arms,

Brittan? I've heard of Britain and I've heard of Brittany, but not Brittan.

Your constitution needs some serious reform, particularly on the subject of gun ownership.
The second amendment is an expedient and ought to be removed from the constitution as it simply isn't necessary or relevant to modern times, and because the spirit of the amendment is not obeyed.

Nobody wants to give up their guns though, so it will never work. A government that tries to remove the second amendment will become the most unpopular in history.

Yes, it is possible to write such a law and it is possible to enforce it to a decent degree. Look at Britain and other European countries. In Britain, firearms are only allowed if you can prove that you have a good use for it, and even then you can only buy shotguns. The police don't carry guns either, except for in Northern Ireland. The only time that the police do use guns, they go all the way with MP5s, sniper rifles and body armour though.

Aren't spelling mistakes... kind of. cali should be Cali'.

the 2nd amendment is not applyed now because what you think like something come up to you and attack you? Well unless you live in the woods..... It was 1791!!! THEY DIDN'T HAD 60% OF THE THINGS WE DO HAVE NOW!!!

the still should it was ment to last for ever. the gangs and other people will still get guns and still killl people in civis wont be able to defend themselves when some thing like that happens

Really? Give me an example of a law that does that. How do you define "those who abuse it"?

Ah, but it will be much tougher for those that want to get them to get them, and most likely end up in greatly reduced gang activity, violence, etc. It won't end it, just draw it to a halt.

Not only did our government break any amendments, they also broke some civil rights.

For instance, after Japan Bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR signed this little thing where it rounds up all the Japanse people living in America and put them into "Isolation Camps" just so they couldn't help out the Japanse back in Japan by being spies. One guy even filed a lawsuit against the prosecutors but they just simply said "It's a temporary safety measure. It wont hurt!" Apparently it did since once they were actually permitted to leave the camps 3 years later, most came back to nothing. THey lost their jobs, property, money, etc!