Can anybody explain why the left wants to take my 2nd Amendment Rights away?

Can you post a link or elaborate more?

The premise of your question is flawed. No “intelligent” answer can be forthcoming.

your second amendment rights are safe and clear just like your weapon. it’s legislators who try to mold it based on societal reasons.

Your question seems a tad inflammatory. Did you intend it to be?

I’ve found that they just don’t understand the cause/effect relationship between the firearms and deaths. They see a death that involves a firearm, and blame the gun. They think that removing the guns will stop people from becoming angry enough to kill.

In what what way is it at risk of being taken away? Are you referring to the waiting period? Does that in some way infringe upon your rights? I don’t think so.

How is it that no one bitches about being required to pass a test to drive a car, required to have insurance to drive a car, and carry a license to drive a car, but even the mere suggestion that similar precautions for a weapon somehow infringe upon some personal freedom???

@ru2bz46 Wonder why the same arguement does not apply to cigarettes. Kaa-Chiiinngg

Hey Drew! Still have your guns? Remember that I still have a bet with you—I’m betting that you will still have all your guns in 8 years when Obama leaves office!

@augustlan Drew probably intended to poke the fire just a little, but he’s a really good guy and gentle as a lamb.

Because you don’t need a fully automatic rifle to go “deer hunting”

Gun control is very different from revoking your right to bear arms.

Isn’t it obvious? We want to disarm you so our terrorist allies can conquer America more easily.

@Qingu Yeah, Don’t they know we dirty liberals hate freedom?

The second amendment was created when it was entirely possible that we needed a people’s militia to fight. Unless the entire US military has been disbanded and someone’s trying to invade, we don’t need a people’s militia.

No one is trying to take your guns away, but certain injuries and deaths could be prevented with stricter gun laws. Do the words Virginia Tech ring a bell?

@Dog I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking… Are you saying that cigarettes kill people, so they should be banned? Cigarettes contain lots of nasty stuff that leads to a person’s death when smoked over time. Over the last eight years, my father has had 25% of his lung tissue removed due to cancer, an aortic aneurysm, and most recently, a quad bypass. All of these issues can be attributed to his smoking cigarettes for 60 years. Does he, or do I, or does anybody else in my family blame the cigarettes for his health issues? No. We all blame him. He chose to smoke, and he knew the risks. He will likely die in the next ten years, and it will be his fault.

Like cigarettes, a firearm is simply an object. Both are manmade; both are inanimate. In order for harm to come to somebody, somebody must intentionally use the object to cause harm. With cigarettes, the choice is the victim’s, and with guns, the choice is the killer’s.

The left is also trying to ban cigarettes because they don’t understand cause/effect and personal responsibility.

I have a gun in my household, but I also made sure to take a gun safety course, a gun ethics course, and have actually qualified for a “concealed carry” permit. But I can tell you unequivocally that a large number of gun owners that I have met have been stupid f*cks too idiotic to be able to tie their own shoes. Should they be able to carry guns? NO.

@KatawaGrey The second amendment is not to protect us from outside invaders. It is meant to protect us from our own Government. We don’t need anything in the Constitution to let our country have a militia.

Syz- too fucking true.

I have guns in my house (and there are a variety of reasons why, as I am not a hunter) yet there are far too many people in this world who possess them and should not.

@ru- the second amendment was placed in the Constitution specifically to contradict (at the time) British oppression.

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.

If you read the document in the historical context which it was written, you will understand.

If you are using the premise of the question merely to foment your own interpretation of the document, good luck.

@Benny
Oh I know I will know where they are buried. Along with the ammo needed to use them. >:)

@augustlan
Who? Me?

@ru2bz46
DITTO on both of your posts. ;)

@KatawaGrey
If people were able to carry V Tech wouldn’t have happened or would have been a whole lot less dramatic. The shooter would have been swiss cheese about his second shot.

@shockvalue
No one I know uses a full auto to hunt with. The ones I do know that own them enjoy shooting them at paper, cans, old cars brought in for just that purpouse and then hauled off to the scrap yard.

The weapons that are being classified as assault weapons are not. They are simi auto weapons. An assault weapon is full automatic.

Psst. DREW. If you click on “edit this response”, you can add additional thoughts as they occur to you without repeated postings.

So you don’t shoot yourself in the foot again?

@syz
Ok. ;)

@Knotmyday
Have you ever read any of the quotes from the Founding Fathers?
The 2nd has nothing to do with protecting us from the British. We had already beaten them.

It was ment as a last resort checks and balance against our gov becoming tyranical. Look up Thomas Jeffrsons quotes regarding the 2nd Amendment.

It was also for our own protection as they knew cops could not be everywhere.

For that matter look them all up and gain some insight into what they were thinking.

Drew, seriously’ the second amendment is about the security of the state not security from the state. Or have you never read it?

Amendment II

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.

One of your buds said you are as gentle as a lamb and I would like to add you have the political acumen of a lamb, too.

Well, without your guns it will be easier for us to force you into a gay marriage.~

@DREW_R: Actually I was more referring to the fact that Virginia’s gun laws don’t require a three day wait and that the background check on the guy was laughable. Fine, carry your guns around, but as @syz said, a lot of gun owners aren’t well educated enough to carry/use a gun responsibly.

If my information about Virginia Tech is incorrect, please tell me. What I have listed here is only what I have heard from other people.

@galileogirl
”... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…. If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”

—James Monroe

Wake up @DREW_R This site couldn’t be much more anti-religion, liberal and left leaning! YES there are exceptions. Thank goodness.

@Cardinal
LOL, I try to stand in the middle, at least until someone step on the Constitution. Then I am on what ever side they are not.

@KatawaGrey
I guess Oregons background check is much better. We have no waiting period.

Where ever the dude from VA Tech got his weapons ought to be closed down. He had a history of mental illness. Of course it might have been his states fault due to different state regs as to what and how they report stuff to the FBI.

Sorry @DREW_R. I had to step out and I left you hangin’. I was just about to respond to @Knotmyday and @galileogirl when I read your posts. I have nothing to add, but “ditto”. Lurves to you.

@cardinal That seems to be a trend with this sort of site. We’re here to keep them from oppressing us. ;-)

@Cardinal Drew isn’t a conservative, as commonly known today. He’s really a centrist, but has this eency weency teency little quirk about guns.

@shockvalue

Gun control is the 1st step of confiscation. With the control comes every law abiding citizens info that owns a gun. Makes it much easier to find and take the firearms. Look at how Hitler started out. ;)

I think that is kind of paranoid/conspiracy thinking. I’d rather take gun control at face value, and get ‘up in arms’ (pardon the pun) if that ‘next step’ ever comes to fruition.

@augustlan When that “next step” comes to fruition, it is too late.

I’m pretty sure we’d hear something about it before the ‘jack-booted thugs’ kicked in the door.

@augustlan The jack-boots don’t march until it is safe. It’s not safe until the citizens are unarmed.

@augustlan
That is what the Jews probably thought when Hitler started his stuff. Now Obama wants a civilian para-military force as strong as our military? Hummmm…. Should start people thinking I would think anyway.

@DREW_R “That is what the Jews probably thought when Hitler started his stuff. Now Obama wants a civilian para-military force as strong as our military? Hummmm…. Should start people thinking I would think anyway.”

Not sure I buy that. The German Jews were middle class people with regualar jobs, and the Eastern European Jews were in Poland and dirt poor and just struggling to survive. But I see your point.

Here comes the Hitler angle. End of this discussion.

@DREW_R Did you seriously just make that comparison? Unbelievable.

@PupnTaco and @augustlan, I believe @augustlan mentioned “jack-booted thugs” first. Jack boots are generally associated with facism/Nazism, and I believe @DREW_R was simply expanding on your initial statement.

Because it’s not part of the universal declaration of human rights and guns are used to kill people, and because we’re pacifists who don’t like being afraid in our own communities, and because guns will do you no good in opposition to your government; the most powerful military force on the planet.

Maybe it’s because they just like flucking with you.

@Jiminez

Get a grip buddy. We have had this disagreement before. The pacifist angle holds no water with me and you know it.

@augustlan

Yes I did and no I won’t take it back.

I was being sarcastic when I used ‘jack-booted thugs’. I’m using the conspiracy theorist’s language there.

Wow. “Flucker.” “Fluffer.”

Beside the (unreferenced) historical opinionating, that post further enhances your lack of credibility. That and the in-your-face manipulative aggression. Thanks, Kev.

Welcome to Fluther, gentlemen.

@DREW_R Exactly what are you quoting in your answer to me? I gave you the second amendment, you gave me an unattributed nonresposive answer.

@kevbo Thanks for that link. I’m speechless.

@galileogirl
One of our Founding Farthers thoughts on the 2nd and there are a bunch more quotes from other signers. Why it is nessaccary. To keep our government in line and to keep it from turning into a tyranical government. The second was pointed at 2 fronts, foreign threats and our own government.

@augustlan

Just look at the comparisons. What did Hitler do? What is Obama trying to do? How popular was Hitler in the early days of his reign? The comparisons go on and on. Learn from history. I am not say that it is what Obama is doing. All I am saying from a historical stand point it could very be.

Also do some comparison work with Lenin and Stalin.

@DREW_R, this speaks to what you are talking about in a broader and somewhat more codified context. If you haven’t seen it already, it’s food for thought.

AH…Godwin’s Law strikes again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

@kevbo Very informative. TY ;)

@DREW_R I’m not sure that matters too hell of a lot. You asked for the reason. I gave you multiple reasons.

@Jiminez

Nothing viable buddy. Pacifists still need protecting since they can’t do it themselves. ;)

Liberals believe that humans are too evolved to need a gun. this is false of course. In typical liberal fashion they think thats whats good for them is good for everyone else.

Its so ironic, liberals claim to be pro choice but theyre anything but. They want to take away my choice to own a gun.

Gun control is a way to chip away at the Second Amentment little pieces at a time, since liberals know trying to reverse it all at once wont work.

easy

calling 911 is enough to protect you.

by dialing 911 aren’t you instantly circumscribed by a sphere of socialist protection through which no bullet nor harm can penetrate?

why would you want a gun?

Isn’t it sufficient to stay on the line with an operator while you’re being shot, stabbed, beaten, or raped?

Why should you want that assault to stop with the instant of a bang as the projectile shreds your attacker?

you are so needy

http://saveourguns.com/posters_you_can_download.htm

http://gun-nuttery.com/images.php

Makes like Oedipus.