Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My personal view (though I don't pretend to be anything close to an expert on the matter) is that the second amendment shouldn't apply to America anymore, on the basis that the situation in 1787 was completely different than it is now (IE, we're not fending off attacks by Native Americans on a daily basis, and the concept of a true civilian militia is thus of little use). That said, I agree that starting to take away amendments from the Bill of Rights is a very slippery slope.
Additionally, I seriously question the usefulness of gun control. I wish we could get all guns out of the hands of nutjobs and criminals, but unfortunately, I think it's far too late for that.
Totally banning firearms in the United States would be as unfeasible and costly as it would be politically impossible. Furthermore, I believe relatively soft measures, such as completely banning automatic weapons or other "more dangerous" firearms, would simply be a waste of time. I rather doubt the average criminal uses a submachine gun, or an M16. More likely, he uses a small, easily-concealed handgun. Furthermore, if you look at some of the more horrifying shootings in America, you'll find that very few involved military-grade automatic weapons; the Virginia Tech massacre, as a recent example, involved only two semi-automatic pistols.
To summarize my seemingly-conflicting arguments: I believe the second amendment is no longer relevant and care little for any right to bear arms, but attempts at gun control are futile, and distract us from more...solve-able issues.
Also, this has been bugging me while reading over the thread. I sincerely doubt a civilian uprising could overthrow the United States government. First of all, we can pretty much throw numerical superiority out the window, because any such event will be political in nature; a small group of extremists, rather than a massive 300 million-person revolution.
The M1 Abrams is a US Army main battle tank. It has a 120mm main gun. Friendly fire incidents have shown that an M1 can survive a direct, point-blank hit...from another M1. Do you have any idea what shotguns and rifles (or an RPG, for that matter) would do to it? And if your plan is guerilla warfare, well, if you went to shoot at some soldiers, a Predator drone would simply follow you home. Then bomb you.
Oh, lastly: unless your strategy is "suicide bomb local civilians until Congress cuts funding for the war", Iraq isn't comparable. And unless you're a highly-experienced fighting force backed by China and the Soviets that already defeated the French after an eight-year war...Vietnam isn't exactly comparable either.
Additionally, I seriously question the usefulness of gun control. I wish we could get all guns out of the hands of nutjobs and criminals, but unfortunately, I think it's far too late for that.
Totally banning firearms in the United States would be as unfeasible and costly as it would be politically impossible. Furthermore, I believe relatively soft measures, such as completely banning automatic weapons or other "more dangerous" firearms, would simply be a waste of time. I rather doubt the average criminal uses a submachine gun, or an M16. More likely, he uses a small, easily-concealed handgun. Furthermore, if you look at some of the more horrifying shootings in America, you'll find that very few involved military-grade automatic weapons; the Virginia Tech massacre, as a recent example, involved only two semi-automatic pistols.
To summarize my seemingly-conflicting arguments: I believe the second amendment is no longer relevant and care little for any right to bear arms, but attempts at gun control are futile, and distract us from more...solve-able issues.
Also, this has been bugging me while reading over the thread. I sincerely doubt a civilian uprising could overthrow the United States government. First of all, we can pretty much throw numerical superiority out the window, because any such event will be political in nature; a small group of extremists, rather than a massive 300 million-person revolution.
The M1 Abrams is a US Army main battle tank. It has a 120mm main gun. Friendly fire incidents have shown that an M1 can survive a direct, point-blank hit...from another M1. Do you have any idea what shotguns and rifles (or an RPG, for that matter) would do to it? And if your plan is guerilla warfare, well, if you went to shoot at some soldiers, a Predator drone would simply follow you home. Then bomb you.
Oh, lastly: unless your strategy is "suicide bomb local civilians until Congress cuts funding for the war", Iraq isn't comparable. And unless you're a highly-experienced fighting force backed by China and the Soviets that already defeated the French after an eight-year war...Vietnam isn't exactly comparable either.
Guns effectively made natural selction obsolete.
What´s wrong with a knife or a blade and beeing up close and personal?
Guns`pff.
What´s wrong with a knife or a blade and beeing up close and personal?
Guns`pff.
Eh you will never win this debate, I think most people from other countries on the Escapist would agree with the OP but US citizens are the only people who like to defend it. Hey, maybe their minds will be changed when their family members are the victims of random mass public shootings.
Everyone who's pro 2A said it already so I'd like to posit this
Cars kill tens of thousands of people every year, in the name of saving lives we should ban them no? It's incredibly dangerous for everyone to just be able to buy a weapon of vehicular mass destruction like that!
and hundreds of kids die accidentally in swimming pools every single year in the united states alone, for the sake of the children we should brick up all the swimming pools! People are dying for guys!
Cars kill tens of thousands of people every year, in the name of saving lives we should ban them no? It's incredibly dangerous for everyone to just be able to buy a weapon of vehicular mass destruction like that!
and hundreds of kids die accidentally in swimming pools every single year in the united states alone, for the sake of the children we should brick up all the swimming pools! People are dying for guys!
I am uncomfortable around guns. I prefer my swords and daggers. Yes, I know, shut up. That's not my point. Anyway, knowing that people carry guns around does not make me feel safer. How many people had a gun in the Arizona shooting, yet didn't use it? A wise choice, but also punches a hole in the theory of "I carry it for protection." I believe many people pause too often with a gun, which makes it not worth having. HOWEVER, I believe it is a right that will never be taken away, nor should it be. But like many laws, people tend to follow the letter, not the spirit, of the law. I believe no civilian should own anything more than a bolt action hunting rifle and a standard hand gun. No one really needs a semi automatic or an assault rifle.
I saw a gun owner in an interview. He was training his young children on how to fire an assault rifle. I think it was an M-16, but I can't be sure. When asked about a new law that was attempting to pass prohibiting the sale of "deadly weapons" out of the hands of children (the law's term, not mine), the man held up a pin and said, "What's that supposed to mean? I was in the special forces, and as such, I can kill you with this pen (holds up a pen). Does that mean I shouldn't allow my kids to play with a pen?" People like that are missing the point of the argument, and they are missing it willingly, which in my opinion, makes them very dangerous.
I saw a gun owner in an interview. He was training his young children on how to fire an assault rifle. I think it was an M-16, but I can't be sure. When asked about a new law that was attempting to pass prohibiting the sale of "deadly weapons" out of the hands of children (the law's term, not mine), the man held up a pin and said, "What's that supposed to mean? I was in the special forces, and as such, I can kill you with this pen (holds up a pen). Does that mean I shouldn't allow my kids to play with a pen?" People like that are missing the point of the argument, and they are missing it willingly, which in my opinion, makes them very dangerous.
edit: doesn't want to embed for some reason so here's the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ZF_mjEGP4
Courtesy of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org
Also FYI for the guys who are saying the 2nd Amendment only ensures firearms ownership for members of the militia it says "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They are separate thoughts. The militia which is the common body of the populace taking up arms, not the formal military, is vital to the preservation of the free state. Thus the rights of the PEOPLE aka the common citizenry to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Watch through the 2A Today video, it'll take you maybe 30 minutes, then you can yell at me all you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ZF_mjEGP4
Courtesy of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org
Also FYI for the guys who are saying the 2nd Amendment only ensures firearms ownership for members of the militia it says "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They are separate thoughts. The militia which is the common body of the populace taking up arms, not the formal military, is vital to the preservation of the free state. Thus the rights of the PEOPLE aka the common citizenry to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Watch through the 2A Today video, it'll take you maybe 30 minutes, then you can yell at me all you want.
Aaaaaaaaand /thread.Radeonx said:
Anyone looking to abolish laws protecting your right to own/carry is an emotionally-charged fool. But let's say we DID remove a citizen's legal right to carry... like another country, perhaps known as a kingdom of sorts...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
Funny how that works, huh? Guns are made illegal to all law-abiding citizens, and yet crimes with guns rise! It's almost as if the criminals know their victims can't fight back effectively without a gun of their own...fascinating!
Google "knife crime" or "it doesn't have to happen", then ask yourself a morbid question...namely, "Gun or knife, which way would I rather go out?"
I also love how we've raised the US Military to this new status of godhood [the same "godly" Military that can't find Osama (who at 6'4" in Afghanistan, is similar to looking for Yao Ming in China)].
I wish that there were a way to limit a nutjob's access to guns, I really do, but the fact of the matter is this: no law will ever do that. If someone really wants a gun, they'll find a way to get it, period. Instituting a law only leaves you defenseless when said resourceful nutjob decides you'd make a lovely new victim.
You really should start killing ducks with your bear hands. It's pretty satisfying to hear their neck crack...(kidding. Maybe)The Man With the Soap said:
OT: Just because civilians have guns doesn't mean they can mount an effective resistance. African countries and middle eastern countries also have a shit-ton of guns, but the people don't know shit about topping the corrupt regimes they live in.
It isn't like everyone has trained in a community mitila or anything...
Also, why the fuck isn't this in religion and politics?
My two cents: considering the number of replies to this thread already, don't be surprised if there's some overlap over what someone else said.
1) Outlaw guns if you want, but like prostitutes, meth, or child pornography, if someone really wants it, they'll find a way to get it. And if you were to get a gun with such a method, then Its doubtful that you want it for self-preservation. Basically, if you make guns illegal, then the only people who have them will be planning to use them for illegal things. And those of us law-abiding citizens who are gunless will be screwed.
2) I know this has been said before, but another reason guns should be legal would be "shits hit the fan" insurance. Say, the goverment becomes oppressive, or there's a huge solar flare that takes out all our electricity, or there's a riot, or something like that: ownership of a gun would draw the line between who survives and who doesn't. Like it or not, the gun is the modern-day weapon, and people have a right to defend themselves and their property.
My 2 cents is non-refundable.
thanks
1) Outlaw guns if you want, but like prostitutes, meth, or child pornography, if someone really wants it, they'll find a way to get it. And if you were to get a gun with such a method, then Its doubtful that you want it for self-preservation. Basically, if you make guns illegal, then the only people who have them will be planning to use them for illegal things. And those of us law-abiding citizens who are gunless will be screwed.
2) I know this has been said before, but another reason guns should be legal would be "shits hit the fan" insurance. Say, the goverment becomes oppressive, or there's a huge solar flare that takes out all our electricity, or there's a riot, or something like that: ownership of a gun would draw the line between who survives and who doesn't. Like it or not, the gun is the modern-day weapon, and people have a right to defend themselves and their property.
My 2 cents is non-refundable.
thanks
Wha? I've talked to Australians who've shot plenty of guns before...adam5396 said:
Maybe it's because they were in the countryside.
/threadKeyMaster45 said:
Seriously though, you don't need a gun to go on a homicidal rampage, and you don't need a tank to fight an army. Some of you guys are putting too much stock in the technical capabilities of the US military. The US hasn't fought a war with normal casualty rates in decades.
Oh boy, debunking time. This is patently false. Weapons and explosive devices that can disable even the most advanced weapons can be bought and constructed with tools and supplies bought from your average Home Depot type store, ect.Wintermute_ said:
All the advanced weapons in the world won't win wars. But I dunno, lets ask the Germans, Vietnam and the Middle East what they think.
Automatic weapons can be made "safe." Often the argument that you don't need one is that the collateral of firing one is excessive, yet you can find automatic weapons that range in power from pistol munitions to full blown rifle rounds. At any rate gun control has been repeatedly found to not work. At the dawn of the 20th century in Britain you could literally buy any gun available on the market right down to a heavy machine gun like the ones used in WW1, and police officers often carried a revolver that they'd seldom use. Today with a near-universal ban on all guns and tightening laws on knives you'd think they'd bring a night stick, at most, but instead they often sport MP5's and other weapons.
At a very basic level I'd say that I'd rather carry a gun than a cop because a cop is heavy. Beyond that someone trying to inflict harm on you can often be seconds away, while a cop can be 10 minutes away, being generous.
Because this is a capitalist economy, I have the right to buy what I want. If I want to buy 10 cars you can't stop me. If I want to buy 10 computers you can't stop me. If I want to buy 10 bottles of vodka and take a bath in it while I get criminally drunk you can't stop me. Obviously I need the money first, but the only rules regarding quantitative consumption in the US is a sales tax. In other words, if I want to buy a lot of stuff the Government wants a cut of my money. Gee, thanks.
Guns jam, break, and require maintenance. So at a very basic level I may want to own more than one or two on the sheer basis that I might not have the luxury of having the time to keep them ready.
Guns are not "tools of death." That's a very generous term. What's a knife then? A butcher's knife? If a gun is a tool of death does owning a camera make you a pedophile? I mean they're used to take pornographic pictures of children, so they can't possibly have another use, right?
Gun violence is a symptom of poverty. People don't kill each other for no reason, and they certainly don't shoot each other on similar logic. Follow gun fatalities by income demographics. Gun control has been universally found to not work in societies that have such stratification of income as you see in the US. And before you harp on about accidental gun deaths being preventable, remember that you're actually more likely to be struck by lightning or accidentally killed by your doctor, than you are to be shot by a gun. And that's bearing in mind that most everyone has at least one doctor, but not everyone has even one gun.
The man in Arizona was clinically insane. It doesn't encourage gun control, it encourages the government to take an active role in the managing and welfare of it's citizens that suffer from a full range of mental illnesses.
The second amendment is fairly straight forward about what it means, and if you really need to pick the brains of the founding fathers you won't find a single one of them chirping about how they need to control the flow of guns.
