Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Daveman]

Just to point out that in the UK guns are legal, they're just much less available and the process of getting a license is much more arduous. This means that if you do own one for hunting or whatever, you can have one. Otherwise I don't see the need for a gun. The only reason anyone in america has one for protection is against other people with guns, without which there wouldn't be an issue.

Also, as stated people wouldn't stand a chance against the army. Although a much more prudent question is why would such a situation arise? You already have a democracy so anybody who could take power you voted in. Also soldiers are people too, they're not just going to blindly follow orders and kill their own countrymen en masse.

That any americans would actually perceive that as a possibility is just weird to anyone else in the world, unless you live somewhere in africa where there are civil wars going on all the time.

IF the Second Amendment is out-dated, then what about the first? Freedom of Speach and Freedom of the Press were far different matters in the 18th century than they are today. Free speach then meant words traded in a bar, not discussions that go around the planet. Freedom of the Press was for newspapers that barely reached an entire city, let alone a 24 hour news network.

Honestly people, you can't pick and chose which parts of the consitution you follow, you start saying 'we need to get rid of the second amendment' then what's next? Speach? Religon? The press? Protection from search and siezure? Trial by jury? Which one?

This is another popular argument. That one change means you might as well throw away the rest of the constitution. Here's an old english law... "Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned". Now surely this law is outdated... but that doesn't mean we have to change everything now, does it. We use our own judgement to decide what's right rather than blindly following the laws of the past.

 

[GRocci]

Hitler's Nazi Germany was the first country to introduce gun control, food for thought

 

[moretimethansense]

The guns are irrelevant - invading the US is a ridiculous thing to attempt anyway (which was my point). Invading a country is also illegal and attempting to invade arguably the most powerful nation on the planet is beyond moronic.

You said that the civillians would be fucked if they were attacked by the military, even the American military only has about 1.4 million currently in servce, the 2nd amendment is still relevent if they want to overthrow the govornment when it gets uppity.

EDIT
Also "invading a country is illegal" then explain iraq.
That was an incredibly stuopid thing to say.

 

[Blitzwarp]

You might be able to tell, but I think it's silly. Why any country thinks it's sensible to allow it's citizens to have effortlessly lethal weapons is beyond me.

I also don't understand why so many Americans are against some sort of National Health System (not citing anybody in particular, just arguments I've seen around and about), but go absolutely bozonkers when someone mentions regulating their pocket-sized death machines. It's almost like Darwinism in motion.

 

[Jfswift]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The world is a crazy place and I feel alot more safe knowing I can own a gun. (banning guns btw or removing this amendment wont prevent criminals from acquiring them. It's a pointless debate really.)

 

[Jodah]

So because a bunch of whackos can't be responsible we should ban all guns. Okay, then we should ban all cars, people can't seem to be responsible with those either. Guns are not only for killing people you know. I hunt, I trap/skeet shoot, I target shoot. You feel it is appropriate to end my hobbies because Joe Retard decides he wants to shoot someone. How about we go after the select individuals that shouldn't have guns instead of everyone?

 

[el_kabong]

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

I don't really have any strong feelings on the 2nd amendment. I'd prefer to keep it, but also favor gun control.

What I will throw in, though, is a direct rebuttal to this statement. If there's one thing history has taught us (and is currently teaching the US), is that guerrilla warfare is extremely effective at using very little military hardware to achieve the best results. The Taliban and Iraq insurgence are not equipped as well as the US military. They have no jets or tanks. Yet they still pose a very real threat to American soldiers.

I'm not some anarchistic militia man (I don't really think any Escapists are, given the demographic), but I think that history has shown guerrilla warfare is able to cause great losses to even the most well-equipped military.

 

[rutger5000]

There are some valid arguments for both sides on this discussion. Personally I think that the arguments against the 2nd amendment heavily outweight those that support it. But that's because my reference frame, if I have had different experience than it's likely I would have thought otherwise. So to me this discussion seems pointless cause neither side is going to convince the otherside. Hate to say it to you America, but you're going to be stuck with this for a while.
(But hey you got your act together when you elected Obama, so maybe you can do it again and ban guns.)

 

[JamesBr]

Living in Canada where there is no such right, I don't get the problem. As a Canadian, I have no RIGHT to own firearms, I have the privilege. Removing the right to own firearms doesn't prevent people from owning them. 22% of Canadians own firearms with no constitutional right to do so. If this privilege was repealed, do you really think seven million people would turn in their guns? I think not.

The problem with US gun laws are not whether or not you should have the right to own them. The problem is the type of guns available to the public and the ease of which you can acquire them. Handguns and automatic weapons are far more likely to be used in illegal situations than rifles and shotguns which have additional uses besides "home-defense" (I'm talking about hunting).

I have no problem whatsoever with gun ownership and I actually wish laws in Canada were a little more lax so I could buy some of the more interesting handgun models out there. At the end of the day, I feel much safer knowing that pretty much nobody has access to easily concealable firearms and that any sort of firearm requires the owner to jump through hoops to purchase.

 

[Woodsey]

The guns are irrelevant - invading the US is a ridiculous thing to attempt anyway (which was my point). Invading a country is also illegal and attempting to invade arguably the most powerful nation on the planet is beyond moronic.

You said that the civillians would be fucked if they were attacked by the military, even the American military only has about 1.4 million currently in servce, the 2nd amendment is still relevent if they want to overthrow the govornment when it gets uppity.

EDIT
Also "invading a country is illegal" then explain iraq.
That was an incredibly stuopid thing to say.

Invading a country is illegal, and that's why there's currently an ongoing inquiry into the legality of the Iraq war. Of course, the Iraq war isn't intended as a territory grab so it's not in the same bag as invading a country because you want it's land, which is why it's up for debate. It's not stupid (STUPID, not stuopid, stupid), it's true. Try fucking checking next time.

And I posted my last post before finishing my write up, so my edit goes into the hypothetical situation of an invasion force capable of actually taking over the US.

I can't believe you're 21, yet know nothing of current affairs, and lack the ability to even look things up.

 

[WanderingFool]

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

I don't really have any strong feelings on the 2nd amendment. I'd prefer to keep it, but also favor gun control.

What I will throw in, though, is a direct rebuttal to this statement. If there's one thing history has taught us (and is currently teaching the US), is that guerrilla warfare is extremely effective at using very little military hardware to achieve the best results. The Taliban and Iraq insurgence are not equipped as well as the US military. They have no jets or tanks. Yet they still pose a very real threat to American soldiers.

I'm not some anarchistic militia man (I don't really think any Escapists are, given the demographic), but I think that history has shown guerrilla warfare is able to cause great losses to even the most well-equipped military.

Well, if there is anything to learn from Iraq and Afghanistan, its that all the best equipment in the world wont help you when 1 out of 12 people in a crowd is about to shoot you in the face. (I pulled that number out of the air, dont quote me on that)

Plus I think if there was going to be a revolution of some sort, people wouldnt just march on the capital.

 

[Rensenhito]

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
Do you ever think that maybe the people who wrote that were, you know, smarter than you?
And knew what they were doing?

I have no doubt that they were MUCH more intelligent than I could ever hope to be. However, we have the advantage of being alive right now instead of 300-odd years ago. Let's be honest, while there are several laws (First Amendment stuff and the fundaments of human rights) that should and will never change, most other laws are only practical for about 50 years max. Times, they are a-changing.

 

[kikon9]

Oh, I predict a storm of feces, incoming.

That having been said, the 2nd amendment was written when guns were significantly different than they are today. I question what the original writers would have thought if they could have seen future guns.

If you showed a modern automatic rifle to the founding fathers, they would be too scared shitless to reply.

 

[kikon9]

Other than hunting and MAYBE a small firearm for self defense (and even then only in certain areas) a firearm is by no means going to be needed. There is no need for the right to bear arms in this country.

 

[VanityGirl]

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. You seem to assume that everyone who owns a gun will shoot someone. This is simply not the case.
I think the ease at which someone can purchase a gun should be made into a long and difficult process. The person needs to go to a background check and a credit check and of course they need to be of age to buy certain fire arms. There should be other requirements to buying firearms as well, but I'm tired and can't think of anymore. XD

I, myself had a gun. I used it because I worked on a farm and needed one in case I ran into a gator or a snake. Most farmers I know carry guns for similar reasons.

Also, even if you COULD take guns away from people, do you really think we wouldn't find another way to purchase them? The big crime gangs and mafia will just get them off the black market.

 

[HK_01]

I personally think it's stupid and in definite need of revision. At least change it to "the right to bear small arms" so nobody gets the brilliant idea that, technically, they should be allowed to buy an ICBM, or, less extreme, an RPG launcher.

It seems that you do not like civilians owning a fire arm.

When America gets invaded, I don't want to have to use a kitchen knife to fight off who ever it is that is bombing our country. Therefore, I think it is a right to own a gun, even if it is a shitty one, it can make a much larger differance the one thinks.

Yep, because the US are totally in danger of being invaded. /sarcasm

There is no single country in the world that could take on the United States, let alone the US and its allies. You'd have to get together a huge conglomerate of nations to have a chance at invading and why would anyone go through the trouble? It's not worth it at all.

 

[Tyrant T100]

Although I'm not American I'd like to share my opinions.
I fully support the second amendment, sure it has its problems but they could be fixed. I live in the UK where owning a gun is near impossible even for farming usage. Hell the laws here are so extreme you can't go airsofting in the woods without being arrested. You can't even use guns as props for amateur filming if you're on public land.

 

[moretimethansense]

The guns are irrelevant - invading the US is a ridiculous thing to attempt anyway (which was my point). Invading a country is also illegal and attempting to invade arguably the most powerful nation on the planet is beyond moronic.

You said that the civillians would be fucked if they were attacked by the military, even the American military only has about 1.4 million currently in servce, the 2nd amendment is still relevent if they want to overthrow the govornment when it gets uppity.

EDIT
Also "invading a country is illegal" then explain iraq.
That was an incredibly stuopid thing to say.

Invading a country is illegal, and that's why there's currently an ongoing inquiry into the legality of the Iraq war. Of course, the Iraq war isn't intended as a territory grab so it's not in the same bag as invading a country because you want it's land, which is why it's up for debate. It's not stupid (STUPID, not stuopid, stupid), it's true. Try fucking checking next time.

And I posted my last post before finishing my write up, so my edit goes into the hypothetical situation of an invasion force capable of actually taking over the US.

I can't believe you're 21, yet know nothing of current affairs, and lack the ability to even look things up.

1)
Who exactly is going to enforce the illegality of an invasion?
I'm pretty sure that there isn't a large superpower out there with a ruler keeping an eye on the rule breakers.

2)
My keyboard sucks, sometimes typos slip through.

3)
I don't know that much about current events because they don't really concern me, I've spent pretty much every day of my life since I was ten locked inside this room without going to school, and I STILL know more about current affairs than your average person my age, cut me a little slack here.

 

[strum4h]

Many people die in car accidents too. We should ban them. But seriously lets consider this. If there were extremely efficient bans on guns that restricted them properly and stopped people that want to kill someone from obtaining them do you think that will stop them? People will always find a way regardless of what they use. Why not ban everything that is potentially dangerous.