Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended ... ?

[danielpalos]

wellness of regulation for any militia may preclude mass shootings that do not advance the Cause of the State or the Union.

 

[August West]

Those militia members are getting younger all the time, like the framers of the Constitution intended.
A Toddler Has Shot Someone Every Week In 2015, Washington Post Reports - CrimeFeed

 

[danielpalos]

Those militia members are getting younger all the time, like the framers of the Constitution intended.
A Toddler Has Shot Someone Every Week In 2015, Washington Post Reports - CrimeFeed

Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to declare only Well Regulated militias as necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Three questions for you to answer -- won't happen, of course:
-What % of guns in the US are involved in a murder each year?
-What is the ratio of the number of guns involved in a murder to the number of guns that are not?
-How does this compare to the rest of the :developed countries"?

I have answered this question more times than I care to remember on this board.

You have answered these questions not once. Ever.

The questions are false ones.

You want to make the case that the number of guns has an adverse on our gun crime.
To do that you have to show that the % of our guns used in gun-related crimes lies outside the norm for the other "developed countries"
Get busy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Indeed.
Tell us then how my ownership/possession of firearms harms you or places you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

You personally? It doesn't.

Since my ownership/possession of firearms neither harms anyone nor places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, on what basis should that simple ownership/possession be restricted?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, poor widdle Loki likes his peashooters so much that the very thought of them being taken off him makes his sphincter contract faster than the pupils of a person whose been stuck in the dark for 20 years and has just had a torch shined on them.

Oh look... playground arguments. Nice.

Well, it's said in a 'playground' way, but there is a serious undertone. I have definitely seen anecdotal evidence that there is a certain proportion of Americans who love their guns because they feel empowered having such a thing in their hands. Makes them feel 'big' and 'powerful'. And it disgusts me.

Arguing thru anecdotes accomplishes nothing.

 

[Dan Daly]

If you think you can repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment, go for it...it won't matter one bit to me because my right to keep and bear arms is an inherent human right that predates constitutions and governments, while the 2nd Amendment is merely an attempt to guarantee that right. Molon labe.

 

[LOki]

Three questions for you to answer -- won't happen, of course:
-What % of guns in the US are involved in a murder each year?
-What is the ratio of the number of guns involved in a murder to the number of guns that are not?
-How does this compare to the rest of the :developed countries"?

I have answered this question more times than I care to remember on this board.

You have answered these questions not once. Ever.

The questions are false ones.

You want to make the case that the number of guns has an adverse on our gun crime.
To do that you have to show that the % of our guns used in gun-related crimes lies outside the norm for the other "developed countries"
Get busy.

Indeed.

It stands to reason that if guns are actually the problem rather than people, then their gun crime arguments should be advanced by gun crimes per gun, rather than gun crimes per capita.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Of course. But I'm not about to say that I'll never need a gun.

More importantly though, I will never tell you that you don't need a gun... I'm certainly not so presumptively stupid to assert that you will NEVER need a gun.

I want one, because I (might) need one. Owning guns is my civil and constitutionally protected right.

OBVIOUS straw-man. Failure number 3. You're just done.

Yet the beliefs of the majority are NOT immune from being entirely bullshit. That's why this country also has a 1st Amendment... because superstition is not "reasonable."

We have a constitution with a Bill of Rights to explicitly put our rights out of the reach of of votes.

Well, its just OBVIOUS from the violent crime rate in these disarmed societies of yours, why you feel this way. OBVIOUSLY if you allowed your folks the kind of access to firearms that Americans enjoy, your sense of entitlement to violence (with guns added) would most certainly result in a blood bath rivalling every lurid Wild West Bloodbath scenario gun prohibitionists predict (but oddly never actually occur).

You make the mistake of equating the lethal quality (gun-death tautology) of American violence with more violence; we don't tolerate violence here as well as you might think... that's why starting it up it is more likely to lead to a lethal end. I might argue that we take violence far more seriously than these so-called "developed" nations that are so often used as comparisons. Punching the next guy for some kind of entertainment, or because he's wearing the colors of a rival's fancy kickball team just doesn't fly here. And those who believe they are so entitled, are often the stronger and more aggressive amongst us--guns remove ALL of their advantages over the weak. I'm very good with that arrangement.

You see, it's the romanticised notion of violence--INCLUDING the romanticised notions of those who think some beatings are just an expression of playfulness--that is problematic. Disarming the victim pool for those sociopaths is both intellectually and morally invalid.

]Yeah. My point stands: "Gun crime"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

At the moment it is a Constitutional right but there is an amendment process, which could change all that.

Strawman my arse. lt directly correlates to what type of society you wish to live in and the gun issue is a hot political potato that can make or break political careers. it's called context.

Blood baths never occur? What was Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech? Sunday School picnics?

Disarming the victim pool? Really. What a piss-weak argument. Most other western societies are disarmed (willing so too) and we certainly don't have the scourge of mass shootings that the US does. It is a very rare event.

My issue is not even one of 'gun crime', which you keep bringing up. It's one that what role does the proliferation of guns has in a modern society.

And I don't really give a shit about your constitutional right. Your rights stop when they start interfering with mine. And at the moment, in the US, those rights are fatally interfering with the lives of other people on an almost weekly basis.

Anybody using "arse" instead of "ass" like an American does is not qualified to judge our right to own and carry firearms.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?

Moderation Note:
Quote Removed because it's from another Message Board. Check the rules.

Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S.
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.

So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.

Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?

The same basic requirements apply to guns which have also been made safer

 

[danielpalos]

Indeed.
Tell us then how my ownership/possession of firearms harms you or places you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

You personally? It doesn't.

Since my ownership/possession of firearms neither harms anyone nor places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, on what basis should that simple ownership/possession be restricted?

Good point; why not convince your own elected representatives you can handle your Arms and don't need any laws other than our Second Amendment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

no, the 2A should not be amended and the fascists that want to are never going to be able to pull it off.

All they will do is turn 80% of the public into criminals and alienate all but the top 5% against our elected government.

 

[Wildman]

five words of insanity, when serving in the Militia , written most likely by a retarded insane liberfool.

 

[Dr Grump]

Three questions for you to answer -- won't happen, of course:
-What % of guns in the US are involved in a murder each year?
-What is the ratio of the number of guns involved in a murder to the number of guns that are not?
-How does this compare to the rest of the :developed countries"?

I have answered this question more times than I care to remember on this board.

You have answered these questions not once. Ever.

The questions are false ones.

You want to make the case that the number of guns has an adverse on our gun crime.
To do that you have to show that the % of our guns used in gun-related crimes lies outside the norm for the other "developed countries"
Get busy.

Actually I'm not talking about crime per se, but you asked for it:

I am 10 times more likely to die from a firearm in the US than Australia..

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AvgGuyIA]

"Gun crime" is the foundation of a meaningless tautology.

Asserting that "gun crime" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that says getting rid of account ledgers would diminish the incidence of accounting fraud; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun crime" so that you can both include crimes that were not caused by guns; and exclude crimes caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the criminal violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun crime"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

I'm not the one who brought up gun crime per se. My main plank is there doesn't need to be a proliferation of guns in a modern society. Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are examples of modern, free, functioning societies that show that you don't need guns in such a society.

Now, I know you'll say you don't 'need' a gun, which is fine. You just want one, and as a 'free' person you should be allowed one. At the end of the day no person is an island. You may think you should be allowed to do what you want when you want without consequences. At the end of the day, any functioning democracy has rules and regulations for a reason. Most of them come about because people believe a society will be better if such laws exist. Sometimes they make sense (laws against murder) sometimes not (prohibition). I want to live in a society where I walk down the street knowing that somebody isn't carrying a firearm and decide that they've had enough of life and want to off people because they've had a bad day. And that is a problem in the US. Do other nations have such people? Sure. But nowhere to the extent of the US. This link about sums it up for me....

If you spend your days walking down the street worried somebody is going to off themselves and take you with them, you have more problems than guns. As many guns there are now, how do you suppose you aren't dead yet? Why do you want to take a gun away from guy who won't do any harm to you. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Let people have their guns. Nobody is forcing you to own one.

 

[Dr Grump]

Indeed.
Tell us then how my ownership/possession of firearms harms you or places you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

You personally? It doesn't.

Since my ownership/possession of firearms neither harms anyone nor places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, on what basis should that simple ownership/possession be restricted?

For the same reason there are restrictions on cars. My 13 isn't allowed to drive way. In civilised societies people believe there should be laws surrounding access to certain types of things. To me it is just common sense.

 

[Dr Grump]

It stands to reason that if guns are actually the problem rather than people, then their gun crime arguments should be advanced by gun crimes per gun, rather than gun crimes per capita.

It's the gun and the people that are the problem..

 

[skookerasbil]

this thread is ghey...........

Gun grabbing has never been as unpopular in America as it is today. With all t he nonsense that has been going on in this country over the last 7 years, the one thing I never worry about is the 2nd amendment going away! Indeed, the gun grabbers are politically irrelevant in 2015!!!


Record number of Americans oppose handgun ban


CNN Poll: Trust in government at all-time low



Progressives in here have the political IQ of a small marine battery terminal.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually I'm not talking about crime per se, but you asked for it:

I am 10 times more likely to die from a firearm in the US than Australia..

Your odds are even lower in communist China, so why dont you go live there where the kind government will protect you and provide for you from cradle to grave, doofus?

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's the gun and the people that are the problem..

But they wont let us just kill off all the libtards any more, so it cant be helped.