Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Anchupom]

I think that if they were stricter, more sensible with it, then the 2nd amandment should have no reason to be gone.
But I've not grown up in a culture where guns are legal, so I probably have a skewed opinion.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Dear OP: Get over yourself. Just because you live in an affluent part of town where crime is nonexistent and complacency runs rampant doesn't mean that the world is a wonderful place full of trustworthy people that would never harm you if it meant bettering their odds of survival in an emergency situation, let alone the people that are fully willing to harm you from the get-go. A cursory glance at statistics for firearm-related crime will show that the assault weapons that you've got a personal vendetta against are almost never used to commit crimes [http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html], and are, for the most part, only aesthetically different from hunting weapons.

Frankly, anti-firearm vitriol is almost always borne of ignorance and lack of respect for the subject at hand, and I'd be hard-pressed to find someone rallying against it when they understand both the pros and cons to the situation.

 

[mocruz1200]

lets repost this thread when the zombie apocalypse hits.

 

[Cryo84R]

I have the right to defend my family, even from the government.

 

[spartandude]

some people say its not the guns that are the problem its the people, if anything that supports gun restrictions, look at Austrailia they have alot of guns because theyve proven to be responsible with them, i think we should take away guns from american civillians until they prove they are responsible to be trusted with them

ive also stated a few arguments in a similar thread but they were largely ignored for being for gun restrictions so im going to go before more morons arrive

 

[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.

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.

There is no way in hell you haven't heard of the United Nations.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Dear OP: Get over yourself. Just because you live in an affluent part of town where crime is nonexistent and complacency runs rampant doesn't mean that the world is a wonderful place full of trustworthy people that would never harm you if it meant bettering their odds of survival in an emergency situation, let alone the people that are fully willing to harm you from the get-go. A cursory glance at statistics for firearm-related crime will show that the assault weapons that you've got a personal vendetta against are almost never used to commit crimes [http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html], and are, for the most part, only aesthetically different from hunting weapons.

Frankly, anti-firearm vitriol is almost always borne of ignorance and lack of respect for the subject at hand, and I'd be hard-pressed to find someone rallying against it when they understand both the pros and cons to the situation.

I applaud you :}

 

[Naeo]

From a strict constructionist standpoint, yeah, we no longer have a right to bear arms because "a well regulated militia" is no longer necessary what with the standing army and all. I believe some supreme court cases have ruled that we still have gun rights, though.

However, guns are regulated less seriously than toys. Toys with lead paint are a no-go. Toys with too many sharp edges are a no-go. Toys that could possibly hurt the child are all a no-go. But guns? There's a short waiting period, then you can get basically any damned gun you please and it's perfectly legal to own them in any quantity. What's more, basically anyone of legal age can buy a gun. It's harder to get your drivers license than it is to get a gun. People who are mentally unstable aren't as restricted from buying guns as they damn well should be (I think they just flat-out shouldn't). Ditto, I believe, for people with a history of violent crimes (again, they should just not be allowed to even possess a gun).

Also, I can't pull the citation for this off the top of my head, but in states with laxer gun laws/more guns per capita, the murder rate is higher. The degree to which directly varies with the number of guns per capita (more guns = more murders, less guns = less murders).

So, I think we should absolutely regulate guns much more strictly than we do. All the arguments about "defending my home" and "defending against attackers" are semi-valid (despite the fact that even people with guns almost never successfully defend themselves in such situations, the recent case with the guy getting mugged and shooting the kid aside), but I think that fewer people successfully defend their homes than get shot due to people being able to have almost whatever guns they want. Also, you don't need 17 handguns, 4 rifles and a carbine to "defend your home." You need one handgun. Maybe two.

 

[Kortney]

I think the lethality of modern weapons should take away the second amendment. When that was written firearms were very different. Now they can kill 30 people in a few minutes. Get rid of it.

I'm not an American so perhaps my view is irrelevant.

 

[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.

There is no way in hell you haven't heard of the United Nations.

You mean that orginization of corrupt jackasses that have a list of human rights violations longer than the Las Vegas strip?

I've heard of them, but I somhow doubt they'd ever actually do something, for example if the Iraq war is found to be unjustified and illegal can you really imagine the US pulling out?
And do you really think the UN would actually do anything if they didn't?

 

[GreyKnight3445]

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?

what part of "that amendment was written in a time where the pinnacle of weapon`s technology was a cannon that shot a lead ball the size of a man`s head and the only gun in existence was a musket that was required to you be in spitting distance of the other guy to get a hit" do you not understand.
The constitution was made to be altered as time went on. Besides its not like i`m talking about taking away people`s guns bur instead make it so that there are fewer killings like the Tucson shootings. Such as having current and potential gun owners take a physiological test to make sure they are of sound mind. But if this is subject is taken up by a current or future president, it will require a lot of time and consideration in order to both accomplish its goals and keep to the spirit of the constitution.

 

[Karma168]

As chris Rock said; let everyone have guns, just charge $5000 for a bullet. that way if someone gets shot you know they did something really bad to warrant getting a $5k piece of lead buried in their chest

 

[Mooko12]

It needs a bit of revision because it's basically saying you can have nukes in your backyard.

 

[ckam]

Since it's my right to bear arms, I totally want a TNW.

 

[BENZOOKA]

It's ridiculously outdated.

I bet it sounds strange, but there are barely any firearm incidents in Finland, because you can't have firearms, unless for a hunting or sharpshooting hobby.

Nowadays you'll be lucky to get a license even if you're an avid hunter, thanks to the school shootings. And that's also some bullshit because those people's problems don't actually have anything to do with firearm policy. And they'll just get a firearm illegally then.

 

[LetalisK]

From a strict constructionist standpoint.....

Couple things, really quick. First, strict constructionism is not a viable judicial philosophy anymore and is mostly used by conservative political pundits who want to sound smart. Second, even following a strict constructionist view point, you still misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment, because a strict constructionist doesn't care what is or is not necessary, only what the letter of the amendment says. What you described is more in the "Living Constitution" camp.

edit: Allow me to elaborate on the necessary part, as I believe I may have been a bit confusing. Under strict constructionism, looking at the 2nd Amendment, the real world necessity of a well-regulated militia isn't the condition that needs to be met for the 2nd Amendment to be valid. Rather, the phrasing will be taken at face value to mean why the 2nd amendment was added and will then be discarded since the "Why?" is not as important to the strict constructionist as is the actual right itself.

 

[zehydra]

"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."

while you're very right about this, the same was thought of the colonists when they were up against the british.

 

[adam5396]

I'd still consider you guys lucky. In Australia we don't get any guns. At all, and no knives are allowed to be carried and I'm pretty sure you can't even own a knife that is designed for say, cutting your way through dense trees or something.

Makes it hard to be a gun/knife enthusiast.