• 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
Hercules56 said:
People are murdered in countries with VERY strong gun laws.
Click to expand...

You don't say.

Thermal's Axios article was interesting. It did decrease for awhile and then shot up dramatically around 2020/2021, around Covid time. When people kind of hunkered down at home, with their loved ones. And eventually they can get on your nerves.

New Analysis Shows 8% Increase in U.S. Domestic Violence Incidents Following Pandemic Stay-At-Home Orders

A report released today by the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice shows that domestic violence incidents in the U.S. increased by 8.1% following the imposition of lockdown orders during the 2020 pandemic.

The findings are based on a systematic review of multiple U.S. and international studies that compared changes in the number of domestic violence incidents before and after jurisdictions began imposing stay-at-home restrictions early last year. The studies draw on a wide range of data, from logs of police calls for service to domestic violence crime reports, emergency hotline registries, health records, and other administrative documents.
Click to expand...

https://counciloncj.org/new-analysi...dents-following-pandemic-stay-at-home-orders/
 
Hercules56 said:
Ive seen no evidence that our murder rate has gone up due to the loosening of any gun laws since Heller.
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was causation. I was pointing out that the trend was already in full force, then reversed shortly after Heller, as opposed to the claim that it continued "down, down, down". It actually slowed around Heller then shot up soon after.
 
It doesn't need to be repealed. All we need is originalist interpretation. Muskets and only muskets.
 
varwoche said:
It doesn't need to be repealed. All we need is originalist interpretation. Muskets and only muskets.
Click to expand...

How come you guys are all good with politicians and other "VIPs" having armed guards or concealed carry permits, but not for regular law-abiding honest citizens?

Are the lives of rich people and politicians and celebrities more valuable than the lives of ordinary people?

Do they deserve safety more than Average Joe and Jane?
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
How come you guys are all good with politicians and other "VIPs" having armed guards or concealed carry permits, but not for regular law-abiding honest citizens?
Are the lives of rich people and politicians and celebrities more valuable than the lives of ordinary people?

Do they deserve safety more than Average Joe and Jane?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anybody's saying that.
 
Again, not sure who's saying that here. No doubt lot of people were. Just like they are with SCOTUS decisions with which they disagree. One sort of comes to mind, but off topic.
 
Hercules56 said:
How come you guys are all good with politicians and other "VIPs" having armed guards or concealed carry permits, but not for regular law-abiding honest citizens?

Are the lives of rich people and politicians and celebrities more valuable than the lives of ordinary people?

Do they deserve safety more than Average Joe and Jane?
Click to expand...

Because some gun buyers are not regular law-abiding honest citizens, and some are when they make their purchase, and kill their wives later or kill their law-abiding moms and go shoot up an elementary school.

Eta: and I'm not "good with VIPs having concealed carry permits" at all, but a professional armed guard doesn't bother me much, nor would Average Joe employing one. We entrust professionals like cops with guns, for better or worse, but Average Joe has a statistically demonstrable habit of turning that gat on himself or others.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Then why were soo many folks upset with the Bruen decision, which recognized the right of ALL law abiding citizens to protect themselves with firearms in public?
Click to expand...

Because Heller had built in qualifiers and exemptions for carry. Bruen says "**** it, everybody can carry!" (+/-). It's begging for deregulated trouble.
 
Thermal said:
Because Heller had built in qualifiers and exemptions for carry. Bruen says "**** it, everybody can carry!" (+/-). It's begging for deregulated trouble.
Click to expand...

Bruen didn't say "everyone" can carry.

It simply said you dont need to show some sort of special need or circumstances in order to try to qualify for a concealed carry permit.
 
Hercules56 said:
Bruen didn't say "everyone" can carry.

It simply said you dont need to show some sort of special need or circumstances in order to try to qualify for a concealed carry permit.
Click to expand...
Yes, much as I hate the decision in a practical way, and think the amendment should be amended, I think if the subject is a right, the decision was unfortunately appropriate. The very nature of a right demands that, even if you need to register for it or meet some age or qualification criteria, you don't need to prove you need it.
 
Hercules56 said:
Sorry but since the Heller decision, there has been no extreme or even noticeable loosening of gun laws that can be shown to have increased murder rates or gun crime rates. In fact for years after Heller murder rates kept going down, down down.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed the gun crime rate went from stupidly ricidulously high to only ridiculously high after Heller.
 
varwoche said:
It doesn't need to be repealed. All we need is originalist interpretation. Muskets and only muskets.
Click to expand...

Cool.

By that reasoning we can go back to the originalist interpretation of freedom of the press in the 1st amendment being the framers didn't see photography, movies, radio, television or the internet becoming a thing.
 
TJM said:
Cool.

By that reasoning we can go back to the originalist interpretation of freedom of the press in the 1st amendment being the framers didn't see photography, movies, radio, television or the internet becoming a thing.
Click to expand...
Ayup. So the 1A doesn't apply to them. Anything not specifically prohibited is allowed.
 
Yeah I don't think the framers had online porn in mind for 1A.

So according to Scalia's and Thomas' constitutional theories, pretty much all good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom