When the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment they had no idea that someday there would be guns that fired over 100 rounds per second. Nobody outside of the military should have access to this sort of weapon, amirite?

+100 When the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment they had no idea that someday there would be guns that fired over 100 rounds per second. Nobody outside of the military should have access to this sort of weapon, amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"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." The entire point was to make sure the citizens of this nation would be able to revolt should they feel the Government was acting unjustly. This would be completely void if they wanted to restrict certain weapons to the military. A person with that kind of weapon is only powerful if they're the only one with it. And considering the horrific shit our military is pulling overseas; murdering civilians for the fun of it, I don't think they're any more trustworthy with those weapons than we are. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/afghanistan-civilians-killed-american-soldier-held.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What's the difference between taking away a gun that fires 100 rounds and keeping them for the government and taking away all guns and only letting the government have it? Taking away any sort of gun from citizens and only allowing it to be used by the government defeats the entire point of the second amendment.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Maybe I'm just being naive, but I'm honestly curious as to why the common man would need that kind of weapon in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I'm in full support of the 2nd Amendment, but I believe that enough is enough. How many more people have to die before something is done?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

As per the meaning behind the second amendment, we would need them in the event of a rebellion against the Government. Also, gang members are armed almost as well as the military.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The point is for the people to be on par with the military, so no. IT's not for self-defense, but for government-defense.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

When the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Amendment, they had no idea that there would be something like the Internet. With this logic, free speech shouldn't exist on the Internet.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree that automatic weapons shouldn't be sold to people, but there is no gun that can fire 100 rounds per second, not even close.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Don't state things that aren't true. There are gatling guns that fire 100 rounds per minute. Also, just to prove //how// wrong you are, the manufacturer Metal Storm produced a gun that fires one million rounds per minute.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okayyy, but did Jackie say 100 per minute or 100 per second? If you reload fast enough there's a BUNCH of guns that can fire 100 rounds a minute anyway. And, a metal storm gun won't be a problem with the public because it will either be too expensive for "mentally unstable" or crazy killers, or be too inconvenient to set up. Within the relevancy of the topic, YOU are wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, I look like an idiot because I used the wrong measurement of time in my comment. I meant "second" where I said "minute", I will admit that. Let me try again: There are gatling guns that can fire 100 rounds per second. They are also available to the public for the right price. Everything else is irrelevant. You said guns that fire that fast don't exist, and they do. You are incorrect.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And most of what you said is irrelevant.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

1 Use the reply button. 2 No, you're just wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

As are you. And i'm fine without the reply button, thanks though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, both can't be wrong either that's what they meant or they didn't and you're acting like a jackass.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Talk about jackasses, you're still on this. I could argue all day about how lowlife people who would use these weapons wrongly could never get them but i'll just pretend that you win the argument. Okay? You win. I withdraw.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"Talk about jackass, you're still on this." Er, so are you, but using a site for it's untended purpose doesn't make either of us a jackss. I "win" not only because you've got no argument but this but because you were wrong the whole time.

by Anonymous 11 years ago