Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[Stacyhs]

What if a 25 year old breaks into your house and tries to rob you with a knife?

Is it then ok to shoot him?

Nice moving of the goal post there! Is it on wheels?

A 25 yr-old with a knife does not equate to a 10 yr-old. Think before you post.

 

[Hercules56]

Depends, doesn't it? An eight- year old breaks into my house to steal my Playstation. That doesn't give me the right to shoot and kill him.

Silly strawman. Vast majority of break-ins not done by 8 year olds.

Now, what if instead its a more REALISTIC scenario, like a 25 year old tries to burglarize you with a knife? Is it then ok to shoot?

 

[Stacyhs]

Silly strawman. Vast majority of break-ins not done by 8 year olds.

Now, what if instead its a more REALISTIC scenario, like a 25 year old tries to burglarize you with a knife? Is it then ok to shoot?

You're the one who used a strawman, not me: "A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion"

What comment of mine leads you to believe that a person can't use deadly force to defend themselves? Was it this one:

And stop with this crap that anyone thinks a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves and their families. It's insane.

Or maybe this one:

Depends, doesn't it? An eight- year old breaks into my house to steal my Playstation. That doesn't give me the right to shoot and kill him.

Try reading for comprehension before posting.

 

[Hercules56]

You're the one who used a strawman, not me: "A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion"

What comment of mine leads you to believe that a person can't use deadly force to defend themselves? Was it this one:..

OK, glad we agree that sometimes deadly force is necessary and warranted to defend yourself and others.

 

[Stacyhs]

OK, glad we agree that sometimes deadly force is necessary and warranted to defend yourself and others.

What person has ever said otherwise? Please, don't try and make that into some kind of 'win' as the right to defend yourself with deadly force when warranted is not dependent on guns.

 

[Hercules56]

What person has ever said otherwise? Please, don't try and make that into some kind of 'win' as the right to defend yourself with deadly force when warranted is not dependent on guns.

The use of deadly force to defend yourself and others includes the use of deadly weapons, like firearms.

 

[Stacyhs]

The use of deadly force to defend yourself and others includes the use of deadly weapons, like firearms.

Sigh. You seem incapable of understanding that one is not dependent on the other. EVERY country gives its citizens the right to defend themselves, even with deadly force, including those with very strict gun laws.

Singapore has the strictest gun laws in the word, but read and see if you can comprehend this:

According to Penal Code Section 97(a), every individual has the right to protect himself or herself or any other person against any offence that may cause physical injury to the human body. According to Section 101 of the Penal Code, the right to private defence of a body arises if you feel that you or another person is in danger as a result of a crime being committed or an attempt to commit the offence. The right lasts as long as you feel you or another person is in danger.

When exercising the right of private defence, an individual can kill the perpetrator in specific situations. According to Section 102 of the Penal Code, the right of private bodily defence can extend to inflicting the offender’s death willingly if:

The person is assaulted and reasonably thinks that as a result of the assault, he or she will die or be grievously injured.
The attack is carried out with the objective to commit rape or other non-consensual penile penetration.
The individual is being abducted.
The individual has been unlawfully confined and reasonably thinks that he or she will be unable to seek release from a public authority.

I suggest you put the shovel down and stop digging.

 

[Hercules56]

Sigh. You seem incapable of understanding that one is not dependent on the other. EVERY country gives its citizens the right to defend themselves, even with deadly force, including those with very strict gun laws.

Singapore has the strictest gun laws in the word, but read and see if you can comprehend this:



I suggest you put the shovel down and stop digging.

Glad we agree that sometimes the use of deadly force with a gun in self defense should be allowed.

 

[Doubt]

Crap poll. I voted Agent M because there are no option there I prefer. It was not even handed at all.

Also, anytime you leave out that part of the amendment about the "well regulated militia", you are distorting the amendment. It is a badly written sentence that would not pass by an English teacher's effort to diagram the sentence.

Speaking as a former national guard officer, if you are not part of a state organized military unit, you are not part of any well regulated militia in any practical sense. And I can say that since I've been there and your average Joe with a gun is not at all competent to engage in any organized defense. Shooting at a range or at furry animals is not going to give you the skill set to engage in combat.

Conflating the security of a free state with personal defense is just BS. They are not the same thing.

That said, I would like to see the amendment replaced by one that confers a reasonable right to self defense. That would be a new amendment and not and amendment to an amendment. See the 21st amendment if this is not clear.

What is reasonable is not the same for all people in all places. If you live in the middle of nowhere and the police are 20 min. away, then owning a gun is quite reasonable. If you live in an apartment building with thin walls, a gun that can blow a hole through the wall and kill your neighbor is irresponsible. The full details of what is reasonable would take a lot of effort to work out, however.

 

[bigred]

We shouldn't repeal the second amendment. We should repeal the idiotic misinterpretation of it that's been going on forever (if only we could). The text:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

People desiring to own guns conveniently ignore the everything from "A" to "state" and just quote the last part.

But of course as with all things political, esp today, it's a pointless debate, as neither "side" will listen to the other.

 

[bigred]

Crap poll. I voted Agent M because there are no option there I prefer. It was not even handed at all.

Also, anytime you leave out that part of the amendment about the "well regulated militia", you are distorting the amendment. It is a badly written sentence that would not pass by an English teacher's effort to diagram the sentence.

Speaking as a former national guard officer, if you are not part of a state organized military unit, you are not part of any well regulated militia in any practical sense. And I can say that since I've been there and your average Joe with a gun is not at all competent to engage in any organized defense. Shooting at a range or at furry animals is not going to give you the skill set to engage in combat.

Conflating the security of a free state with personal defense is just BS. They are not the same thing.

That said, I would like to see the amendment replaced by one that confers a reasonable right to self defense. That would be a new amendment and not and amendment to an amendment. See the 21st amendment if this is not clear.

What is reasonable is not the same for all people in all places. If you live in the middle of nowhere and the police are 20 min. away, then owning a gun is quite reasonable. If you live in an apartment building with thin walls, a gun that can blow a hole through the wall and kill your neighbor is irresponsible. The full details of what is reasonable would take a lot of effort to work out, however.

And that's what I get for not reading the thread first. Well said

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The 2nd Amendment gives Americans and legal residents the right to protect themselves, their families and the public with firearms from violence.

Many Americans are AGAINST this right, and feel we should not be able to defend ourselves with deadly weapons like guns.

Should we repeal this right?

I understand Kyle Rittenhouse is on some kind of national tour these days to promote/defend/lecture on the 2nd Amendment. I so enjoy those who, whether in person or, like here, online, claim expertise on subjects they might want to step back from and crack a book or three before going any further.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

We shouldn't repeal the second amendment. We should repeal the idiotic misinterpretation of it that's been going on forever (if only we could). The text:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

People desiring to own guns conveniently ignore the everything from "A" to "state" and just quote the last part.

But of course as with all things political, esp today, it's a pointless debate, as neither "side" will listen to the other.

In retirement in 1991, Chief Justice Warren Burger (R) said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

“The very language of the Second Amendment,” wrote Burger, “refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. … The Framers clearly intended to secure the right to bear arms essentially for military purposes.”

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

First one must have a working knowledge of what an "Inalienable Right" is. It would seem many have no concept of the term. Understandable among an International audience.

 

[bruto]

First one must have a working knowledge of what an "Inalienable Right" is. It would seem many have no concept of the term. Understandable among an International audience.

Indeed it would be a good idea to understand. I would suggest that the inalienability of a right most concerns to whom the right is granted, and to whom it may not be denied. This by itself does not define what the extent, dimensions and limitations of that right might be. And I think even those who would claim the nearly absolute coverage of the second amendment actually know this, which is why even the NRA is not (at least as far as I know) pushing for the right of citizens to own bazookas, rocket launchers, and guided missiles.

What makes a right a right is not what it allows you to do, but who is allowed to do it. If a right is yours you need not purchase it or justify your need for it. It was that last requirement that killed the New York gun licensing law.

And it goes without saying, I hope, that the word "inalienable" does not appear in the Constitution. We can presume that the founding fathers considered the traditional trio of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be so, and likely others, but whether they did is a matter of speculation, as is whether they believed all the rights enumerated in the Constitution shared that quality.

What we consider the inalienable rights of a human being, the natural rights of mankind, is a social construct, and not sharply defined, and that is so even if almost everyone agrees, and even if our perception of what those rights ought to be is faultless.

If we're going to be literalist and originalist when we discuss the matter, we must beware of attacking the assumptions of others with assumptions of our own.

 

[sackett]

Assault rifles are already highly regulated by the ATF.

No they aren't.

 

[Hercules56]

No they aren't.

Yes, they are. Assault rifles are full-auto, and they are highly regulated by the ATF and the NFA.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed it would be a good idea to understand. I would suggest that the inalienability of a right most concerns to whom the right is granted, and to whom it may not be denied. This by itself does not define what the extent, dimensions and limitations of that right might be. And I think even those who would claim the nearly absolute coverage of the second amendment actually know this, which is why even the NRA is not (at least as far as I know) pushing for the right of citizens to own bazookas, rocket launchers, and guided missiles.

What makes a right a right is not what it allows you to do, but who is allowed to do it. If a right is yours you need not purchase it or justify your need for it. It was that last requirement that killed the New York gun licensing law.

And it goes without saying, I hope, that the word "inalienable" does not appear in the Constitution. We can presume that the founding fathers considered the traditional trio of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be so, and likely others, but whether they did is a matter of speculation, as is whether they believed all the rights enumerated in the Constitution shared that quality.

What we consider the inalienable rights of a human being, the natural rights of mankind, is a social construct, and not sharply defined, and that is so even if almost everyone agrees, and even if our perception of what those rights ought to be is faultless.

If we're going to be literalist and originalist when we discuss the matter, we must beware of attacking the assumptions of others with assumptions of our own.

In the resounding words of Tommy J (from memory of the DoI):

"...(The People) are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Put simply, being found guilty of a capital crime (common at the time of that writing) could alienable the living **** out of those inalienable rights, at the decision of the People or the government. Or any imprisonment. Or police/military action, etc.

By analogy, the People or the government today can alienable the **** out of 2A by declaring the People as a collective to be unable to restrain themselves from murdering each other and school children en masse.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sigh. Come on, people, we're all going to be murdered eventually anyway so why fight it? Just roll with it. So what if the carjacker shoots you in the head? Your car is trash anyway, he's not really getting away with much. Get over yourself.

 

[Stacyhs]

Glad we agree that sometimes the use of deadly force with a gun in self defense should be allowed.

Sigh. I've never said otherwise.