Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter Hercules56
- Start date
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
There are 638,000 full auto machine guns in circulation.
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
I'm surprised there are so many. Still. I would rather people who rail against "assault weapons" refer to this group rather than then the larger group of semi-autos.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
At the time the Constitution was written, a lot of "persons" were owned by other "persons" and bought and sold like chattel.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
A ban is simply a kind of a regulation. And if you own something that a new regulation prohibits you from owning, what are you going to do with it?
This is the problem that I think many people who say "they're a-comin' to take mah gunz!" (sorry for the stereotyping) miss. Yes, if anything is going to be done to reduce the amount of gun deaths in America (mass or otherwise), you're going to have to give up some guns. You can do so voluntarily, or someone's going to turn up on your doorstep and ask you to hand it over.
In terms of the 2nd Amendment, since you asked, it was pointed out upthread that a lot of countries handle issues of self-defence without a right to own deadly weapons. And in those countries you can still get a deadly weapon if you want one. You just have to comply with the regulations. The difference is that weapon ownership is considered a privilege, not a right.
Beelzebuddy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,600
During the Uvalde school shooting, a single teenager holding "something with a stock that looked military" proved sufficient to hold back over four hundred armed law enforcement officers while he killed people for over an hour. You can attribute some of that to cops being generally chicken**** when it comes to actually doing the putting their life on the line they brag so much about, but the psychological aspect of the gun's appearance, not it's firing speed, was undeniably the dominant factor in the situation.
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
The officers on the scene, or at least the ones giving the orders, seemed much too concerned with self-preservation. This a situation where a hero or two could have saved a lot of lives.
Thermal
August Member
There aren't. About 3/4 of those are strictly in the hands of government agencies, and of the other quarter, they are at least 40 years old or more and are basically extremely expensive collectors items.
For the sake of a discussion of what the public actually faces, weapons designed as military/assault weapons are the concern, whether they technically are still one or not. Actual machine guns are by and large not encountered by the public, and are not used in shootings.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Talking about "assault weapons" runs the risk of descending into weaponised pedantry. Can we all agree that we know what we mean and not do that for a change?
Do you think they should be banned? I certainly do.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What's the point? It's not like anyone has any fresh ideas, anything new to say. Might as well re hash the assault weapon thing Yet Again, while the madness is upon you?
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
I dont see the need, they are rarely ever used in crimes.
Thermal
August Member
Fair point. How about restricting the discussion to what could be reasonably agreed to on all sides, and why?
I'd opine that gun owners should be licensed to vet out violent criminals and mentally ill, etc. Shotguns, rimfires and muzzleloaders with limited capacity (say, 10 rounds for the rimfires) should be largely unrestricted. High powered hunting rifles under light restrictions, say, 5 round max capacity) and registered to individual owners. Handguns: revolvers or seven shot mags for autos, no public carry. Exemptions for special case open carry, determined by law enforcement (large animal threat, etc). No ccw or other open carry, long guns or handgun.
Severe penalties for those violating gun laws, like concealed carry. Your ass is non-negotiably serving felony time (3-5 automatic minimum for handgun crimes, NJ called it). Loss of firearms license and confiscation for say 10 years, if found committing gun crimes, lifetime on second offense.
I think in broad brush, that balances home protection and sporting use, while keeping the dedicated people killing guns largely out of reach. And if you are not largely a people killer, that shouldn't be much of a problem.
Last edited:
Engblom v. Carey.WP Prison guards with state-owned housing went on strike. National Guard was called in to maintain the prisons. Guards were kicked out of their state-owned housing in order to house the National Guard troops.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,491
I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. But that doesn't mean I'm in favor of banning firearms. The problem with the Second Amendment is that it's existence prevents common sense regulations such as prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from possessing them.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
No. Its its quick firing nature and the fact it will defeat most forms of body armor.
Aren’t assault weapons always used in mass shootings?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
I think Herc's point is that most gun crimes are not mass shootings. Which isn't the flex I think he thinks it is.
Herc’s moving the goalposts.
Mass shootings need to be stopped. Assault weapons need to be banned.
Not always, but many. Even if they are outlawed it still won't prevent mass shootings. Maybe a lower death count, but it's still going to happen.
Gun law reform would probably help, but it doesn't prevent the phenomenon of disturbed people.