I'm tired of hearing this particular argument against the Second Amendment:
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The thing is thats only because guns were ever legal. In england guns were never legal so shootings here? Very very rare. I dont support guns but its too late for you America. You cant stop them now. I dont think making guns illegal there would help anything at all. Not because of "tyranny" not because of "freedom" but because it wouldnt do anything.Aur0ra145 said:
Apologies but I must admit that I find your arguement to be somewhat flawed. Because if what you say were to be true, then in essence there could've never BEEN a tyrannical government in all of human history. They'd never have gotten off the ground if their militaries were as humanitarian as you'd claim them to be.
Also; Why would you NEED to be armed in order to be able to mount a resistance movement capable of over throwing a government? there's been countless ones that managed to achieve their freedom through means other than armed conflict.
Also; Why would you NEED to be armed in order to be able to mount a resistance movement capable of over throwing a government? there's been countless ones that managed to achieve their freedom through means other than armed conflict.
Are you so thick as to not get the point that I agree that guns can be a necessary defensive tool? I'm NOT arguing that no guns should be sold to anyone, ever. But that's all you seem to be hearing/reading/seeing. I don't get it at all. Your argument is one long talking point about how guns are necessary for defense in this day and age. I want you to read this next point. I Agree That Guns Can Be Necessary. Look, a concession. An agreement. I mother-... Agree that guns can be good. Got it? I'm not arguing that no guns is the solution.ReverendJ said:
I am arguing for, at the least, a background check. Where is the harm in a background check? If no reason is given, I will assume that you don't have a good one to give. I would also appreciate a waiting period added to the purchase of buying a gun. But one victory at a time. Background checks don't harm law abiding citizens when it comes to purchasing guns. If someone really, TRULY believes that a gun is worth owning, and they have respect for the weapon, I'm sure they'd be willing to undergo at least a background check.
I mean, for God's sake, in order to be a volunteer at Big Brothers Big Sisters, you have to be checked. For most jobs, you need to be checked. For adopting children, you need to be checked. Why, then, do we not insist on checking people who wish to own a weapon as powerful as a gun? We check to make sure people can safeguard life, but we don't check if they want a tool to make taking it that much easier? This makes no sense. Please, explain this. And don't respond with, "Guns are necessary for safety," or "I don't want to have to rely on the police," or "I want to take my own safety into my own hands" because I already get that and I agree. That's why I've trained in martial arts for over a decade. Maybe not as effective as a gun, but I'll take whatever advantage I can get in order to make sure that I, my friends, and my family is safe.
No argument brings out unreasonableness like a second amendment argument. I would like to make two points in an attempt to temper both sides here.
1) The 2nd Amendment is a philosophically important freedom to protect.
Not as a safeguard against our own government, but as a safeguard against the estabishment of a "warrior class." Anyone is entitled to defend the country from an outside attack. Philosophically, I think that's a good thing. Our government can't make, let's say, Hawaii dependent on troops from the mainland to defend itself. The citizens of Hawaii will always legally be able to defend themselves. (Do I think this is terribly likely? No. But just because I don't think the government is likely to send soldiers to live in my house doesn't mean I'm not glad we have a 3rd amendment).
2) Gun control is a public safety issue.
There is a real and demonstrable link between the availability of firearms and the number of shooting deaths. More easily available guns lead to more gun-related injuries. Having a gun in your house increases the chance of someone in your house being shot. This isn't a political statement, it's math. As I've already mentioned, I think the second amendment is good to have around. And, I'll admit, I think guns are cool. (I do live in Texas). From a practical standpoint, however, gun control is effective at reducing gun violence (both intentional and accidental). Just as there are practical limits put on the first amendment, I don't think it's unfair to expect some limits to be placed upon gun ownership. If that means that I can only shoot a burglar 12 times before reloading instead of 30? Well, we all make sacrifices for the good of the country, right?
1) The 2nd Amendment is a philosophically important freedom to protect.
Not as a safeguard against our own government, but as a safeguard against the estabishment of a "warrior class." Anyone is entitled to defend the country from an outside attack. Philosophically, I think that's a good thing. Our government can't make, let's say, Hawaii dependent on troops from the mainland to defend itself. The citizens of Hawaii will always legally be able to defend themselves. (Do I think this is terribly likely? No. But just because I don't think the government is likely to send soldiers to live in my house doesn't mean I'm not glad we have a 3rd amendment).
2) Gun control is a public safety issue.
There is a real and demonstrable link between the availability of firearms and the number of shooting deaths. More easily available guns lead to more gun-related injuries. Having a gun in your house increases the chance of someone in your house being shot. This isn't a political statement, it's math. As I've already mentioned, I think the second amendment is good to have around. And, I'll admit, I think guns are cool. (I do live in Texas). From a practical standpoint, however, gun control is effective at reducing gun violence (both intentional and accidental). Just as there are practical limits put on the first amendment, I don't think it's unfair to expect some limits to be placed upon gun ownership. If that means that I can only shoot a burglar 12 times before reloading instead of 30? Well, we all make sacrifices for the good of the country, right?
For most purposes I'm a liberal...but if you try me or my loved ones I'll shoot you in the effing face. If you restrict me from owning a gun because of that statement, I'll stab you in the neck. Restrict my right to own I knife and i'll choke the life out of you. Take away my right to bear "arms" and I'll kick your teeth in. Take away my right to owning legs and I will Black Knight you.
Technically, it exists so that the states can have standing militia (The National Guard) so that the federal military can't be used to simply overpower individual states. Saying that the same principle should be applied for protection against all levels of the gov't is an interpretative difference.Woodsey said:
I really like how grossly misinformed this position is. Sure, if they stand and fight they get slaughtered. This is why they do not stand and fight. Only in a tiny fraction of incidents are US forces even allowed the opportunity to respond.Random Fella said:Yet normally in a battle between terrorists and US military 100 terrorists die and 1 US soldier dies so the terrorists will call it a victory.
Even though the US military suck"Hmm who do I shoot? Oh right my own troops" 0.o
And, for the record, there is a clear distinction between an insurgent fighting for his homeland and a terrorist. The terms are not interchangeable as people seem to believe.
i'm English so forgive if this sounds ignorant or i'm missing something
two questions have arisen in my mind
both centred around the fact that the government clearly must plan to oppress you in some way in the future
1) why would you need to protect yourself against your own government?
2) why the hell would the government give you the means to defend yourself against it?
two questions have arisen in my mind
both centred around the fact that the government clearly must plan to oppress you in some way in the future
1) why would you need to protect yourself against your own government?
2) why the hell would the government give you the means to defend yourself against it?
1) In case they're jerks.supermariner said:
2) So we cooperate and pay taxes.
In fact, the entire Bill of Rights exists to protect states and the people from the federal gov't. IE: Freedom of speech, religion, and protest, the right to a trial by jury and the right to not be a witness against oneself, etc.
All the federally granted rights are about protection.
PS-Don't worry about sounding ignorant. Older countries like those in Europe have constitutions written with very different philosophies. Unless I'm mistaken, the original form of the English constitution was about restricting the liberties of the monarch.
