Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sorry to burst your ignorant and naive bubble, but ever heard of a thing called "Prohibition"?
Take out alcohol and insert firearms, and you basically have what will happen if you restrict civilian gun usage.
In Japan, it is illegal for civilians to own or use firearms. Ever heard of the Yakuza? Yeah, it's really working over there.
If you make something illegal, it only makes it more worthwhile for black markets and criminals to gain a hold of, because the cost of contraband will go up, hence more money for underground markets.
So, yeah, "revising" or abolishing the 2nd amendment would be a lot worse than just keeping it as it is.
Take out alcohol and insert firearms, and you basically have what will happen if you restrict civilian gun usage.
In Japan, it is illegal for civilians to own or use firearms. Ever heard of the Yakuza? Yeah, it's really working over there.
If you make something illegal, it only makes it more worthwhile for black markets and criminals to gain a hold of, because the cost of contraband will go up, hence more money for underground markets.
So, yeah, "revising" or abolishing the 2nd amendment would be a lot worse than just keeping it as it is.
If guns were outlawed then only criminals would have guns. Think about that tautological statement. The average citizen really doesn't have a way to defend against people we are willing to do those illegal things to get the guns in the first goddamn place. People who get a hold of a gun (illegally) really have a lot more power than they would if guns were legal. This also seems like a real slippery slope argument. You can say the same things for things like knives and other weapons.Wintermute_ said:
The whole "When" Thing was for sarcasm. America's military is tough as hell.lumenadducere said:
Even if we're assuming that guns DO cause crime (which if you compare crime rates to other countries with guns, you'll see isn't really the case,) gun control wouldn't work in America. It works fine in England because England is on an island. America, on the other hand, is right in between Canada and Mexico, both of which have a surplus of guns and very easily crossed borders.
If the common citizen isn't allowed to have guns, then the only people that WOULD have them would be the people who got them illegally, which would probably be almost exclusively the people who intend on using them. Most of the time organized crime is done with illegal guns anyway, since registered firearms are easily tracked, and most (if not all) automatic weapons are illegal. I don't even think that those over-publicized school shooting/suicides like Columbine and virginia tech would be prevented by gun control. If you're going to mow down your classmates and then off yourself, buying an M4 on the black market isn't going to be much of an issue. The only thing gun control might prevent is the odd escalating domestic dispute scenario or things of that nature.
But I digress, really the main issue is people, not guns. Should we be a bit more selective on who we give guns to? Absolutely. But outright banning them is a lost cause.
If the common citizen isn't allowed to have guns, then the only people that WOULD have them would be the people who got them illegally, which would probably be almost exclusively the people who intend on using them. Most of the time organized crime is done with illegal guns anyway, since registered firearms are easily tracked, and most (if not all) automatic weapons are illegal. I don't even think that those over-publicized school shooting/suicides like Columbine and virginia tech would be prevented by gun control. If you're going to mow down your classmates and then off yourself, buying an M4 on the black market isn't going to be much of an issue. The only thing gun control might prevent is the odd escalating domestic dispute scenario or things of that nature.
But I digress, really the main issue is people, not guns. Should we be a bit more selective on who we give guns to? Absolutely. But outright banning them is a lost cause.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Everyone should be allowed to own a black powder musket, according to the law at the time.
Everyone should be allowed to own a black powder musket, according to the law at the time.
Cold. Dead. Fingers.
CDC says 10x as many peeps die every year from smoking than guns. Tackle a real problem before you try to tell the rest of the US that *you* don't think they should have guns anymore.
I haven't read all the replies between the OP and mine but I will say this: its a choice. If more Democrats simply equated the 2nd amendment with the other issues they believe the public has a right to, they'd clean up every election. Republicans, sadly, understand that firearms are a choice but other things like abortion aren't (to them anyway).
First political party that can line up on all the issues is going to hold all the marbles in this country for many years to come. Unfortunately, most anti gun peeps demonize firearms and their owners in the same way anti abortion and anti gay marriage folks demonize abortion docs and GLBTQ peeps.
I'm tellin you, first political party to back freedom of choice in these matters wins.
As to the OP, one hundred, two hundred, or even two years ago, the original words hold just as much meaning and relevance. If the government oversteps its bounds, If a national disaster occurs and the gov is nowhere to be found, or if the folks in DC rewrite the rules of engagement for your next BBQ (they consider it a political gathering) the premise is simple: if you are unarmed and not enjoying your right to keep and bear arms, you get to beg for your life. I hope you beg better than you barter your freedoms. Plenty of folks in the past twenty years have not been decent enough beggars. May they rest in peace. Even the jerks among them.
My guns have killed no one in the past 70+ years. (There may be an old Mauser or two in there that did something pre WW1, I'm not sure) And, heavens willing they never will. But its my choice to own them, not yours. Prohibition of something that any segment of the public wants has NEVER worked in this country and frankly never will. Can't start a country toting supply and demand principles and then say... everything but that! It won't work.
CDC says 10x as many peeps die every year from smoking than guns. Tackle a real problem before you try to tell the rest of the US that *you* don't think they should have guns anymore.
I haven't read all the replies between the OP and mine but I will say this: its a choice. If more Democrats simply equated the 2nd amendment with the other issues they believe the public has a right to, they'd clean up every election. Republicans, sadly, understand that firearms are a choice but other things like abortion aren't (to them anyway).
First political party that can line up on all the issues is going to hold all the marbles in this country for many years to come. Unfortunately, most anti gun peeps demonize firearms and their owners in the same way anti abortion and anti gay marriage folks demonize abortion docs and GLBTQ peeps.
I'm tellin you, first political party to back freedom of choice in these matters wins.
As to the OP, one hundred, two hundred, or even two years ago, the original words hold just as much meaning and relevance. If the government oversteps its bounds, If a national disaster occurs and the gov is nowhere to be found, or if the folks in DC rewrite the rules of engagement for your next BBQ (they consider it a political gathering) the premise is simple: if you are unarmed and not enjoying your right to keep and bear arms, you get to beg for your life. I hope you beg better than you barter your freedoms. Plenty of folks in the past twenty years have not been decent enough beggars. May they rest in peace. Even the jerks among them.
My guns have killed no one in the past 70+ years. (There may be an old Mauser or two in there that did something pre WW1, I'm not sure) And, heavens willing they never will. But its my choice to own them, not yours. Prohibition of something that any segment of the public wants has NEVER worked in this country and frankly never will. Can't start a country toting supply and demand principles and then say... everything but that! It won't work.
I look at it like the principal of M.A.D., but on a much smaller scale. Maybe automatic rifles are pushing it, but I still think that if everyone owned a gun, there would be no incentive to use it.
Radeonx said:
Agreed.
Seeing as how the vast majority of weapons used by criminals were gotten illegally and are black market, doing away with the amendment entirelly puts too much power into the hands of the criminals.
No matter how much our government tries to tighten gun regulations, it WILL NOT stop criminals from getting their hands on them. Quite the contrary, it makes it more difficult for legal owners/users to obtain a weapon. Enough so that some people might forego it altogether so as to not have to deal with the hassle, red-tape and buerucratic paper work. Sure, though, the additional measures that have been implimented help weed out some here and there that really shouldn't own weapons, but it's not fool proof. Our government needs to come up with some kind of idea that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on weapons, than making it harder to law-abiding citizens to do so.
Personally, I see everyone has the right to defend themself in a violent situation, and simply seeing someone carrying a weapon, or knowledge that a potential victim might be armed is enough of a deterant for most criminals. It's very similar to how simply having a "beware of dog" sign in front of your home has a high probability of detering a break in. Even if you don't own a dog, the criminal can't be sure of that fact and is more likely to pass your house by.
Criminals mostly look for easy targets - they want their crime to be quick and easy to execute and get away with. They're not looking for a struggle. The longer the have to be around the "scene" the higher the probability that they will be caught.
Yeah there is only over a million people in the military. It's not that large.The Man With the Soap said:
For me gun ownership should be limited to weaker rifles, shotguns, and pistols. No body needs a really powerful rapid fire machine gun. I am a gun owner and I think we need a bigger restriction. Did you know in most states you can legally own a flame thrower due to our gun laws?