In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
That "personnel" part might be a problem. With 300 million guns in the country, I presume the number of gun owners is at least 100 million. You think a couple hundred thousand soldiers are going to be able to take them away, when THOSE VERY SOLDIERS PROBABLY DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY with taking guns away from citizens?
Just who do you think joins the military, anyway? Graduates of Cal-Berkeley?
Here's the thing. Sure, you can ban guns. Say that is even possible... people will just find other ways to kill people. If people were killing others at the same rate of guns with pencils, are we going to ban pencils too? This is stupid. Guns don't kill people. They are inanimate objects. If guns kill people, then silverware makes people fat.
This post was edited by DirtyTerp34 19 months ago
The violence prevalent on the news and in print media is far more of a factor in creating a culture of fear and driving gun sales than call of duty and action movies. Most people can discern reality from fiction.
No doubt it needs to be re-crafted properly. Why does any private citizen need a gun that fires 600-700 rounds per minute? It wouldn't be hard to create reasonable criteria that eliminates the subjectiveness of the previous law.
So if you don't think the US military would go along with efforts of the government to take over the country, why would your reason for owning guns be the second amendment? It protects against a situation that you're saying couldn't happen.
Medical examiner said all the kids were killed by the Bushmaster.
Better hide your assault rifles...
You'd have to assume that these soldiers would be willing to refuse orders for these beliefs.
Anyway, I think what Devils was getting at was that the ownership of auto and semi-auto guns by the populace still doesn't allow for a credible scenario where they could overthrow a tyrannical government in this age of military technology. Which is a ridiculous premise in this day and age, unless you think Last Resort is well written and realistic.
If you tried to outlaw hunting, I can guarantee you that the state of Texas would secede. You may not view that as a bad thing, but it would happen.
The second amendment says people have a right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't go into the reasoning or hypothetical scenarios. It just makes a statement. Rationalizing why we do or don't "need" it might be a stimulating debate, but irrelevant.
Well I think given the context of the time it was written, the reasoning is pretty clear.
Yes, it does.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
It's too broad, but it's still reasoning.
sounds like the national guard to me.......
If a ragtag group of terrorists could give our military trouble in the middle east, 300 million guns should have some effect.
That's just as easily read as the militia being necessary to the security, not the individual's gun ownership. I think the interpretation you are making would justify banning all guns except for militia, and that's not how it's interpreted.
Yes, but the text of the amendment is even clearer than the reasoning. I think they knew they were making a distinction between a militia and "the people", which is broader. That's why it doesn't say a militia has the right to keep and bear arms.
This post was edited by frode 19 months ago
Wat? Bring more mags, that's all.
I also don't think some terrified 5 year olds are going to rush him when he has to reload.
That makes NOD's scoffing at only 1/3 of households look incorrect.
Right, but the overall context of the Bill of Rights is protecting the citizens against the government, that's the overriding sentimnet. No reasonable scenario exists in 2012 where the right to bear arms would apply in such context.
I'm not arguing for the banishment of guns or anything, just pointing out that citing the 2nd Amendment as why you own guns just doesn't make sense in today's society.
I'm gonna disagree with that, regarding dumb people and crazy people. I'm calling for a ban on Hollywood action movies to be linked to ANY attempt to strengthen gun control laws.
I see what you're saying now...and I agree that if your only reason for owning a gun is because the 2nd amendment says you can, that's stupid. But the vast majority of people I know who own guns own them for other reasons.
I didn't say that. Taking away guns from citizens is a completely separate scenario from seizing power, though it might precede such an effort..
Or are you telling us that your idea of taking away guns from citizens, will be linked with seizing power? In that case, I'm doubly against taking guns.
I think most people do too, but when pressed about it you hear a lot of "This is America man! Right to bare arms!"
I've been reading the Rivals main board about this topic and you wouldn't believe the number of people (mostly from the south) who argue like that.
And the SCOTUS disagrees with you, AFAIK.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports