+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?

81%Yeah You Are19%No Way
Jackies avatar Jokes & Humour
Share
2 16
The voters have decided that Jackie is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

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.

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?

@Altoid_Freak_250 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...

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.

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.

"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...ilians-fingers

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/...l&_r=0

http://www.policymic.com/articl...-drone-warfare

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.

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

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.

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.

@robertohoskins Okayyy, but did Jackie say 100 per minute or 100 per second? If you reload fast enough there's a BUNCH of guns that...

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.

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

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

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

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.

@robertohoskins Talk about jackasses, you're still on this. I could argue all day about how lowlife people who would use these...

"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.

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.

And most of what you said is irrelevant.

@robertohoskins And most of what you said is irrelevant.

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

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.