Should firearms be banned? {Closed}

To my knowledge its immensely difficult to change them. You would need the approval of most of the population of the United States, the President himself would need to approve of it (although in Obama's case, I doubt it - from what I've heard his party constantly give him trouble and he holds very little power over them), and the entirety (?) of congress would need to approve of it.

1. the act of amending or the state of being amended.
2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
3. a change made by correction, addition, or deletion
Definition of amendment from Dictionary.com, so yep, pretty much.

Well, to get extremely technical, it isn't even the projectile that would kill the person. It would be the force of the high speed bullet against a far slower, if not stationary, person. The resistance of skin and bone is, in most areas of the human body, not strong enough to withstand this force and therefore the bullet penetrates the body. And regardless, even the force itself doesn't kill the people unless it hits a vital organ, and at that point, the true killer of the victim is the opening left by the force of the projectile propelled by the gun which had the trigger pulled by the murderer.

So people use guns to fire bullets at a speed which increases the force enough to beat the resistance of the human body by such a degree that a hole is left with the bullet at the end, or a clean hole going through.

Guns don't kill people. The holes left by the force of fired bullets kill people.

"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." - U.S. Bill of Rights, 1791.

Some clarification to those who need it.

Militia - is a combat force made up of civilian combatants.
Infringed - to act so as to limit or undermine.

Rewritten in a more basic fashion.

To insure that the freedom of the state (not the state itself) is preserved, the people (militia) need to maintain a force that, while being reasonable and regulated, is powerful enough to protect the freedom of the state (prevent a corrupt president from acting in a manner detrimental to the freedom of the state). Because of this, any government attempt at restricting the right of the people to, not only own firearms, but to bear firearms, shall not be allowed.

I really don't see how this point could be argued from a sensibly, yet our government blatantly ignores this. From a legal perspective, anyone (over 18, when the bill of rights officially applies to you) has the full legal right to carry a firearm of any form down the street, and as long as you don't shoot it, no government officer has the right to stop you. But they will.

And for saying this stuff out loud, people stare at me like I shot their dog, and accuse me of supporting terrorists and school shooters.

And about the amendments being changed, I think that they get the name amendments because they were changes from how the world operated at the time. What the United States did was new to the world, so they were amending the rules which the world had used to govern itself previously.

I'm no Constitutional scholar but I can read what was written, why do we argue about what is clearly noted in the sovereign governing document of our nation.

Sorry to those who don't live in the U.S., I don't know enough about those countries to make an intelligent comment.

Without a doubt one of the major uses of the law is to keep our government in check. I would like to point you to my first post here where I said that actually banning firearms would take a very long time and that trust would need to be rebuilt between the people and the law enforcement/government. I also feel that if us having bigger guns than our government is the only way to keep them in check then we all have already lost our country. Mutual assured destruction is never a solution to a problem. In my first post on this thread I also mentioned how this idea that guns keep the government away only puts on a terrible cycle of trying to one up the other with even bigger guns. Pretty soon, both sides will have more than enough to devastate the other side at the pull of a trigger. This is also assuming that the government wants to or even can take over to the point where we would need guns to fight back. The number of moving parts needed within our government to come together is massive. If a couple of people tried to take over everything, they would need to fight the entire political system we currently have. Adding to that, they would also need the support of the US military. The power of a dictatorship is only as strong as the military is willing to make it. Let's assume that somehow a new group of people completely take over Washington and declare themselves in charge. Obviously, US soldiers won't like that very much and those remaining will continue to grow America and fight back against our dictators. You also need to realize we aren't the only ones who care about our well being. Many other nations in the world will want to assist us with this situation if not only to ensure the world economy doesn't collapse. I would say that even without all of the random and disorganized citizens wielding guns, we would still stand a very strong chance in removing any internal threat.

With that out of the way, I would say that the biggest threat where guns are concerned are other gun owners. Sure, you can protect yourself better from armed people by using your own guns, but if neither side had guns, you would have much more options of escape or survival. A maniac wielding a knife is much easier to take down than a maniac with a gun that can shoot many round quickly and can kill from a far distance. In the end, I would rather have a little faith in my government and the military than allow nearly anyone to come in and shoot up a place.

Can be added to.... Not taken away

That bit I know is wrong - at least one has definitely been removed. No idea which one... but I'm pretty positive one has been - the prohibition one I believe?

They will have to pry them, out of my Cold Dead Hands
MOAAN AABE - meaning: Come and Take Them

The Germans hated the Weimar Republic and its government until the Streisemann Era, and then when that ended they continued hating it because of the unstability it had. When Hitler took over and formed Nazi Germany, he had the respect of the army, most of the people, and he even got the public to hate the groups of people he hated. Obviously, some people didn't like that and started movements within Germany - but hardly any of them ever took off and the people in them were murdered.

What if the same thing that happened to the Weimar Republic happened to the U.S (although the U.S constitution isn't as flawed as the Weimar Republic's was, so this is near impossible to happen )? Do you think that American citizens can avoid believing the propaganda fed to them by a corrupt government, unlike the German citizens in the 1930s? I do think it would be harder, seeing as people in this day and age are better informed about dictatorships and the like, and want as much privacy as possible and for the government to know their bounds - but not many people are immune to brainwashing, especially when its presented in a believable fashion to them and its everywhere.

I think you can make amendments taking away other amendments?

If the people are brainwashed and the public supports the dictator, how will them having guns help the people who don't like the chsnge?

This is a complete , running , restored T34-85. The T34-85 has a crew of 5 , Weight is 64,000 Lbs , Length 26' 7" Width 9' 8" Height 6' 5".The 85MM main gun had a range of 1100 yards.

LOCATION : SOUTHERN ALABAMA.
My next gun!
Only $185,000

If we all had tanks the world would be a better place barren wasteland, a warzone with people as crazy and fanatic about war as General Patton

In the U.S. Civilians can and do own tanks.
Hope to own that one myself.

I believe without the weapon correct? (I mean, the weapon has to be disabled)

And under certain conditions with certain permits, I can legally own a flamethrower. Doesn't mean that I should go out and get one. If I got one, my house would burn down within maybe 5 minutes. There is no use for flamethrowers for a US civilian. There is no use for a tank for US civilians.

With the right licences and lots of paper work the Gun Stays functionable.
Other wise U.S. Civilians can't own Artillery.
Anything over a 50 cal. is considered artillery.

An amendment cannot be removed from the United States Constitution because it is federal law.
However, it can be repealed. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, the prohibition of alcohol.

I don't think you have seen our unlawful "standing army" and their arming with tanks recently. The DHS, local and state police forces and several federal entities like the BLM have been stocking up on tanks within the past 10-(probably more accurate)14 years. There is definitely a reason for civilians to own FUNCTIONAL tanks imho. I have already studied several ways to disable them remotely with little preparation and resources without having to have another tank but that doesn't mean I wouldn't feel safer without one of my own.

As far as the constitution goes the bill of rights was not written with the intent of being a "change" to the constitution but clarifying rights that would not be infringed upon by the federal or state/local governance. It is the bill of rights because it was written to protect our rights, the only reason there is a second amendment is to protect our individual right to own a firearm. Groups of men with guns don't have to worry about asking to do too many things, especially when they have no respect for the law in the first place.

A flamethrower would really help with ant problems and I wouldn't have to worry about some kid coming and thinking he is an expert on what he is doing and spraying poison all around my house for me to breathe in for months *goes to find a flamethrower*

"the right to bear arms"
Arm: Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.
Firearm: a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder. (Dictionary.com)

A tank is -definitely- a "small arms weapon". Yep, totally agree. I could carry around a tank and hold it in two hands, firing at stuff.

And the flamethrower... Well, let's hope your mental state doesn't lead to homicide or arson then. More power to you if you really want to buy a flamethrower. I can't argue there, since that can be held in both hands and in technicalities the fuel tanks and such used for it, if equipped on the back, is not in of itself a gun... so a flamethrower is covered by the second amendment.

If those who made the constitution and bill of rights had any prediction of the future, there would be about a million errata to that amendment about what counts and does not count as an arm.