• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 31.0%

  • No

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • No, amend it to make possession of a gun VERY difficult with tons of background checks and psych eva

    Votes: 25 35.2%

  • I can be agent M

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Total voters
    71
dirtywick said:
i agree, it's an intentionally poor mischaracterization of any real position anyone holds not really worth answering.

i've heard it summarized as the country needs a standing militia in case of british aggression, but needed an armed populace in case the militia decided to overstep. of course, there's been some pretty serious ripple effects from this, and really more due to it's status as an unquestionable sacred document than a legal one. further, it didn't have any relevance in either of the insurrections anyone has attempted since either imo
Click to expand...

Right. Kind of like the presidency had a "natural born" provision, because the founders didn't want some Brit getting in and turning us back into a monarchy or internally sabotaging the States. The relevance of some of the Constitution has passed, and the rest could do with an update. We don't **** in buckets wearing wigs much anymore.
 
Anyway back to the OP.

2nd Am ain't perfect but we clearly have and need a right to protect ourselves with deadly force.
 
Hercules56 said:
Actually it is.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't, would that change your mind? If guns demonstrably result in the deaths of far more innocent people than they save, would that make a difference in your thoughts about repealing the 2nd amendment?

Hercules56 said:
2nd Am ain't perfect but we clearly have and need a right to protect ourselves with deadly force.
Click to expand...
For example, the question begging here. We don't need a right to protect ourselves with deadly force. Plenty of other countries get along fine without it and they've yet to descend into lawless anarchy.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Anyway back to the OP.

2nd Am ain't perfect but we clearly have and need a right to protect ourselves with deadly force.
Click to expand...

Culture's a weird thing.

I see no need for myself and my countrymen to have access to deadly force.
 
Hercules56 said:
You must live in a very safe country.

Sadly much of the USA has its share of deadly criminals.
Click to expand...


It's safe enough that I don't feel the need to carry a firearm.

Of course, part of the reason it feels* safe enough is that those of my countrymen who are less law abiding or less well adjusted than most do not have extremely easy access to firearms.


*How it feels and how it actually is can be two different things, of course.


Edit: Ninja'd by Thermal.
 
Hercules56 said:
Sadly much of the USA has its share of deadly criminals.
Click to expand...

...because we are awash with black market guns. The vast majority of which were manufactured here legally or imported legally and first sold through licensed dealers.

The legal market is the source for the black market. The easy availability of black market guns is a result of self-fulfilling prophesies from gun-culture proponents.

And that is something that increased regulation can address.
 
General question for our Good Guys With Guns contingent:

How many times have you gotten into these gunfights you fantasize about? Is it like an annual thing, or monthly, or what?

ETA: every 'home defense with guns' advocate I know makes basically zero provisions for actually stopping an intruder from getting in, but spends beaucoup bucks on the guns and ammo they fantasize about killing them with...you know, after they walked right in. Something about priorities is bouncing around in there, somewhere
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Right. Kind of like the presidency had a "natural born" provision, because the founders didn't want some Brit getting in and turning us back into a monarchy or internally sabotaging the States. The relevance of some of the Constitution has passed, and the rest could do with an update. We don't **** in buckets wearing wigs much anymore.
Click to expand...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ju...ave-gun-rights-protected-second-amendment.amp

maybe this is a good test for if it needs an update or not?
 
Hercules56 said:
Actually it is.
Click to expand...

That's a very difficult thing to find stats on, but at a search I find claims that approximately 20% of Americans have had a family member killed by gun violence (CBS News, PBS News, EuroNews), and that 58% have lost "a family member of someone they care about" to gun violence (Everytown Research).

That presumably wouldn't count casual friends, co-workers, or people who you did know but maybe didn't even like at all, perhaps because (and I wish this were a hypothetical) their death coming after taking their family hostage (thankfully not harming ending up harming them) and then killing themselves was not particularly surprising. All of which WOULD count for "knowing someone who died from gun violence".

Any statistics that support your opinion? I fully admit I just did a quick check.
 
Hercules56 said:
The arming of the militia was already handled by the Constitution in 1787. Nothing else was needed to make sure they had guns and other weapons.

Clearly the 2nd Amendment was for something different.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and
Click to expand...


That's the congress. The Second Amendment was for the states.
 
dirtywick said:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ju...ave-gun-rights-protected-second-amendment.amp

maybe this is a good test for if it needs an update or not?
Click to expand...

I think there's a big and important difference when defining and limiting a right between deciding what may be done and deciding who may do it.

Some rights (such as voting) are limited in various ways from the start, but many are not. You don't have to be anything in particular to be entitled to due process, security against illegal seizure of your property, and so forth. Everyone has some rights. The issue here, I think, is whether the perceived right we see in the second amendment is one of those, or maybe even whether it should be a right at all, not to promote a hierarchy of right-holders.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Actually it is.
Click to expand...

A member of my family was shot and killed while minding his own business in a library. The man who shot him killed four other people. He bought his gun legally from a store that should not have sold it to him according to the laws in force at the time. My family member was a retired Secret Service agent who both owned firearms and was an expert in using them to defend himself and others.

ETA: The shooting in which my family member (an uncle) died might have received more national attention, except that coverage was eclipsed by the Columbine High School shooting two days later.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm lucky because all my relatives who died from guns (excluding in wars) shot themselves. So...that's a win for freedom? Hooray! #USA #USA #USA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom