Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[jt512]

If the US had a National Referendum on repealing the 2nd Amendment, it would pass easily.

How do you figure? 44% of Americans have a gun in their home. Presumably few of these people would want the 2nd Amendment to be repealed. How many of the rest do you think would actually oppose the 2nd Amendment? Just because you don't own a gun doesn't imply that you don't think you should be able to.

 

[acbytesla]

Why should you have to justify your rights to anyone?

That's the problem with the principle of firearm possession being a right.

A right in my mind is freedom of speech or privacy.
The right to be free from racism.
The right to be free from sexism and free from unwanted invasion of our bodies.
The right to do with our own bodies as we choose. The right to love who we choose to love.
The right to believe in whatever fairy tale that you want.
You live your life and let others live theirs.

I don't think that the ownership of military grade weapons as a right.

 

[jt512]

Congratulations on bravely killing that strawman you so cleverly created.

That was precisely the argument you wrote. If you meant something else, I can't read your mind.

 

[acbytesla]

How do you figure? 44% of Americans have a gun in their home. Presumably few of these people would want the 2nd Amendment to be repealed. How many of the rest do you think would actually oppose the 2nd Amendment? Just because you don't own a gun doesn't imply that you don't think you should be able to.

I have five guns and I would vote for it. And I don't buy that percentage. Most gun owners believe we should have stricter gun laws. There is a difference between sensible gun regulations and banning firearms. It isn't the slippery slope that the NRA has made it out to be.

 

[jt512]

You won't be able to repeal the 2A until sufficient numbers of people want to repeal it.

Sufficient numbers of Americans will never want to repeal the 2A. It least not in the foreseeable future.

You have to make guns uncool.

Guns are uncool.

You seem confused. Are guns uncool or do you have to make them that way?

 

[Trausti]

That's the problem with the principle of firearm possession being a right.

A right in my mind is freedom of speech or privacy.
The right to be free from racism.
The right to be free from sexism and free from unwanted invasion of our bodies.
The right to do with our own bodies as we choose. The right to love who we choose to love.
The right to believe in whatever fairy tale that you want.
You live your life and let others live theirs.

I don't think that the ownership of military grade weapons as a right.

The right to self-defense would seem the most fundamental. How can any other right exist without it?

 

[jt512]

I have five guns and I would vote for it.

You have five guns and you vote to have your legal right to own them taken away? That's basically insane.

 

[arthwollipot]

Why should you have to justify your rights to anyone?

So that the authorities know what you intend to do with your gun, so they can decide whether it is appropriate or not for you to have it.

Sufficient numbers of Americans will never wan to repeal the 2A. It least not in the foreseeable future.

"Never" is a long time. That's why I think Arthwollipot's Great American Gun Plan will probably take generations to complete. When nobody's grandfather still wants a gun for no real reason, then the country will be ready to repeal the 2A. But to get there, you have to change hearts and minds. Promoting the idea that guns are uncool and only losers and jerks have them for no real reason is one way to do that. The sooner you start, the better.

You seem confused. Are guns uncool or do you have to make them that way?

You're confused by ordinary English rhetoric?

In the first sentence I'm making a proposition. In the second, I'm adopting the proposition in order to make the point.

 

[arthwollipot]

The right to self-defense would seem the most fundamental. How can any other right exist without it?

The right to self-defense and the right to possess a gun are not synonymous.

 

[Trausti]

So that the authorities know what you intend to do with your gun, so they can decide whether it is appropriate or not for you to have it.

Well, that's a bit fascist. If you support the political regime, good go comrade! If not, no rights for you kulak!

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, that's a bit fascist.

No, it's not fascist at all. It's sensible. Why should I give you a gun when I have no clue what you intend to do with it?

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, that's a bit fascist. If you support the political regime, good go comrade! If not, no rights for you kulak!

Emotional hyperbole will have no effect on me and only makes you look reactionary.

 

[Trausti]

The right to self-defense and the right to possess a gun are not synonymous.

The Soviet Constitution had freedom of the press, of speech, of religion, of assembly. But no right to bear arms. Huh.

 

[Trausti]

Emotional hyperbole will have no effect on me and only makes you look reactionary.

Dude, why oh why would give to some state bureaucrat the power, the discretion, to decide whether you are worthy enough to exercise your rights?

 

[jt512]

You're confused by ordinary English rhetoric?

In the first sentence I'm making a proposition. In the second, I'm adopting the proposition in order to make the point.

You need to make it clearer, then, when you are being "rhetorical." I think most anybody would read what you wrote as a plain contradiction.

 

[jt512]

No, it's not fascist at all. It's sensible. Why should I give you a gun when I have no clue what you intend to do with it?

Curious how this would work in practice. I doubt that carjackers or mass murderers would announce their intentions to the authorities.

 

[arthwollipot]

The Soviet Constitution had freedom of the press, of speech, of religion, of assembly. But no right to bear arms. Huh.

Funny, so does pretty much every other country that has a constitution that recognises rights. So don't go poisoning the well and implying that it's only the damn godless commies that do it.

Also, make up your mind. Is gun control fascist or communist? They're, like, polar opposites.

Dude, why oh why would give to some state bureaucrat the power, the discretion, to decide whether you are worthy enough to exericse your rights?

State bureaucrats already have power and discretion - that's literally what we pay them for. It's why we have states and bureaucracy. State bureaucrats have the power and the discretion to decide how fast you can drive your car, and how much you're going to pay for imported goods. They have the power and discretion to make you wear a helmet while riding your motorcycle. Is it fascism to make you wear a helmet while riding your motorcycle? Maybe ask Ron Smith, who successfully campaigned to overturn Florida's mandatory helmet law in 2000, only to die due to blunt head trauma in a motorcycle accident while not wearing his helmet two years later.

Secondly, it's not about whether you're "worthy". It's about what you intend to use it for. If you are a licensed hunter, sure. Go for it. Have fun killing dumb animals. Sports shooter? Great! Go win some medals. But if your reason is "I think I might need to kill someone some day"? Get ******.

Finally (there are so many problems with what you're saying and I'm barely scratching the surface), you're begging the question by assuming that it is and should be a right. Remember, only three countries in the world recognise a right to bear arms: the United States, Mexico and Guatemala. And only the United States recognises the right to bear arms without additional constitutional restrictions. All other developed countries recognise the right to freedom of assembly and press and speech and religion, but not the right to bear arms. All other countries. The United States is an outlier.

 

[arthwollipot]

You need to make it clearer, then, when you are being "rhetorical." I think most anybody would read what you wrote as a plain contradiction.

I think it's pretty clear that what you think "most anybody" would do bears very little correlation with reality. For example:

Curious how this would work in practice. I doubt that carjackers or mass murderers would announce their intentions to the authorities.

"Most anybody" is not a carjacker or a mass murderer.

And the way it works in practice is this: You apply for a firearm license. You fill out a form, which includes personal details such as name and address, and there's a bit on the form where you state what you intend to use your firearm for. If the reason is one of the ones listed in the legislation, then the state shall issue you with a license.

Oh yes. Australia is a shall issue state. Did you know that?

 

[jt512]

Secondly, it's not about whether you're "worthy". It's about what you intend to use it for. If you are a licensed hunter, sure. Go for it. Have fun killing dumb animals. Sports shooter? Great! Go win some medals. But if your reason is "I think I might need to kill someone some day"? Get ******.

You were doing ok until you red herringed it at the end.

What if your reason is that you want to be able to defend yourself or your family against someone who threatens you or them with lethal force or grave bodily harm?

 

[PitPat]

Again, 2nd Amendment is not being repealed. Even if it does get passed by Congress, (which it won't) then not by states.