Poll of the Day > 2nd Amendment

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The US should just follow the ammendment exactly as laid out, and no further.

You don't get concealed or open carry permits, you don't have a use for it in general life. If you are transporting a gun, it must be for the purpose of militia necessities i.e. training or storage. No hunting, no self-defense laws, no laws to shoot trespassers, no entertainment use. You are allowed guns so that you may have a well-trained militia, if it cannot be proven to be for precisely that purpose then it should be expressly illegal.

You have no understanding of the 2nd amendment whatsoever.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You appear, like most of the anti 2A people, to just pretend the second part does not exist, as well as the context in which it was written. The whole point is to have a well armed populace, that can at any time assemble a militia if needed, and any attempt to prevent that is a violation of the constitution. People like to argue that they didn't intend for them to have heavy armaments, well that's bullshit. They made full use of privateers at the time. Private citizens that literally had war ships decked out with cannons stem to stern. The idea was that the people would be an army in and of itself, with the ability to assemble and fight anyone that would attempt to deny them the rights acknowledged in the constitution. Enemies foreign, and domestic.

Revelation34 posted...

Militias are not official military so drafting has nothing to do with it.

that's how it meant back in the day

Ozmose posted...

You have no understanding of the 2nd amendment whatsoever.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You appear, like most of the anti 2A people, to just pretend the second part does not exist, as well as the context in which it was written. The whole point is to have a well armed populace, that can at any time assemble a militia if needed, and any attempt to prevent that is a violation of the constitution. People like to argue that they didn't intend for them to have heavy armaments, well that's bullshit. They made full use of privateers at the time. Private citizens that literally had war ships decked out with cannons stem to stern. The idea was that the people would be an army in and of itself, with the ability to assemble and fight anyone that would attempt to deny them the rights acknowledged in the constitution. Enemies foreign, and domestic.

Did you not read what I wrote, or are you illiterate? Not a single thing I said infringed on any people keeping and bearing arms. The second ammendment isn't the right to use arms at a carnival game, not the right to shoot other citizens for any reason, it is not the right to show off that you have arms. The second ammendment doesn't defend a right to shoot at the government legally, it defends having the means to break the law to do it should the people deem it necessary. You don't need to shoot bucks to have a militia, you don't need to brandish it in public, you definitely don't need to shoot people on your property as an individual to act as a militia when necessary.

You haven't made a single point against anything I said, just ran your mouth because you're butthurt you want to dick about with guns for any other reason than the creation and maintaining of a well-regulated militia.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Do you not know your own laws, buddy?

Oh the irony.

Im in the partially camp because of the reality of the situation. So many guns are here already. Doing something unprecedented (like banning them all) isnt going to magically get rid of the ones that are already in the wild. And there are decent people who legitimately need to be able to defend themselves from an attacker.

It would be better if all of the guns just vanished and no one had one but thats not the world we live in.

I think it's poorly phrased, and even some people at the time thought so, so I don't think that's unreasonable of me. I much prefer:

Constitution of Virginia
Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Quite a few state constitutions have just flat-out "better" versions of the 2nd amendment, imo.

And I would add in a caveat almost word for word from the 13th amendment:

"except as a punishment for (violent) crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"

No guarantee of armament rights for abusers, rapists, etc (basically the people most likely to go on murder sprees). Certainly a less egregious form of rights restrictions of felons than the forced labor the 13th amendment permits, and this one actually serves the purpose of harm reduction.

Gaawa_chan posted...

No guarantee of armament rights for abusers, rapists, etc (basically the people most likely to go on murder sprees). Certainly a less egregious form of rights restrictions of felons than the forced labor the 13th amendment permits, and this one actually serves the purpose of harm reduction.

Out of curiousity, back when the US was founded, would rapists have been hung? Because that seems like an obvious reason to allow it for all people,.if those people would be dead so it would be unnecessary.

Zangulus posted...

People who worship guns are so weird to me. I grew up with weapons. Im not afraid of them. Currently live in a house with at least 1 rifle, and probably more.

One of my managers got straight up heated when I told him he shouldnt have silencers for duck hunting.

What's wrong with hunting with silencers?

Revelation34 posted...

What's wrong with hunting with silencers?

Depending on the jurisdiction a suppressor is an illegal accessory, that just being in possession of, is a criminal offence.

Dark_Spiret posted...

if you think its getting that bad its as you said, they have the guns. the left are the ones sitting in the corner twiddling their thumbs, screeching to the high heavens in hopes that brings some form of change. thats not the way the world works most of the time. the right are going to protests heavily armed which DOES influence decisions. if more people on the left did so, especially more minority communities it shows they arnt the pussified party to allow their country to slip into that totalitarian mindset maybe youd see something serious happen.

left gun ownership has actually increased since trump

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/22/if-others-have-rifles-well-have-rifles-why-leftist-groups-are-taking-up-arms

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/25/first-time-gun-sales-not-voting-for-trump-430310

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/7/4/AAQwHjAADm5u.jpg

guns being illegal won't stop criminals from having them.

not having guns won't stop them using knives/bats.
do you really want to risk your life trying to defend yourself?

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

And there are decent people who legitimately need to be able to defend themselves from an attacker.

Laws can be written in such a way that guns are illegal for the general populace, but legal for cops, soldiers etc.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You do realize people put silencers on thier guns, so they don't blow out thier eardrums while firing guns, not because they want to be some stealth assassin. A gun fired with a silencer is quite audible most of the time, especially a shotgun or hunting rifle. It is only something like a .22 pistol that is truly silent with a silencer. Pretty much the only sound you hear with that is the bullet ricocheting

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

there really is no real negatives to using a suppressor for hunting, especially. while having a ton of benefits to the shooter. even some countries in Europe REQUIRE that you use one.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Do you not know your own laws, buddy?

I'm not your buddy, guy.

KodyKeir posted...

Depending on the jurisdiction a suppressor is an illegal accessory, that just being in possession of, is a criminal offence.

That doesn't answer the question.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This is incredibly untrue, considering the trend for decades now has been fewer and fewer gun owners, but gun owners themselves owning more and more guns.

So the number of guns in the country isn't actually proportional to the number of people who actually have guns. Most of its citizenry isn't armed at all.

And most people are dumb and don't understand how statistics work.

To be fair, the existence of other countries isn't necessarily a counter-argument to anything, because millions of different variables exist across a wide span of categories, so direct comparison between nations can be incredibly misleading.

For instance, gun control works better in the UK because the borders of an island (or more accurately, a handful of islands) are easier to patrol and control than the massive borders of a continent-spanning nation. Social net policies and massive income taxes work better in a homogeneous nation like Sweden than they potentially would in one of the most heterogeneous nations on Earth. It's easier to push mass transit solutions over individual car ownership in smaller European nations than it is in a nation with massive sprawling landscapes and spread out populations. And so on.

There are always "The US should do X because Nation Y does it and it works", but most of those arguments are simplistic as fuck and fatally flawed to anyone who is actually paying attention.

I am aware that there are other factors, but I believe it very hyperbolic to suggest that any argument comparing the US with another country in regards to gun laws is 'fatally flawed'. Is it...really 'fatally flawed' to suggest that more detailed background checks and training would be beneficial? As other countries do? Pretty sure it's more of a 'fatal flaw' to dump a gun into a schizo's hands at Walmart.

There are always "The US should do X because Nation Y does it and it works", but most of those arguments are simplistic as fuck and fatally flawed to anyone who is actually paying attention.

How is this itself not an oversimplification? "The USA is different, durrr!!!". Sure, it's big. Sure, most of the guns are in the hands of a relative 'few', although it's still overall high (44% have a gun in the household).

Other countries won't sell guns to people with criminal records. Obviously this will not stop all of these people from seeking out guns and buying them (legally, illegally), but it will obviously and legitimately limit the fact that it's almost as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a slushee in many US states. Whereas here in Canada, you're free to get a gun...but you have to prove that you're capable of handling it first.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

Laws can be written in such a way that guns are illegal for the general populace, but legal for cops, soldiers etc.

criminals don't care if something is illegal

Krazy_Kirby posted...

criminals don't care if something is illegal

What is your point? "Criminals do not care about laws, so laws are useless" really is not the amazing argument you seem to think it is.

We should legalize murder because murderers will just kill people anyway!

Krazy_Kirby posted...

criminals don't care if something is illegal

Neither does your supreme leader or you when it comes to him.

your fire extinguisher fails if it catches fire... no point in having it :b

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Did you not read what I wrote, or are you illiterate? Not a single thing I said infringed on any people keeping and bearing arms. The second ammendment isn't the right to use arms at a carnival game, not the right to shoot other citizens for any reason, it is not the right to show off that you have arms. The second ammendment doesn't defend a right to shoot at the government legally, it defends having the means to break the law to do it should the people deem it necessary. You don't need to shoot bucks to have a militia, you don't need to brandish it in public, you definitely don't need to shoot people on your property as an individual to act as a militia when necessary.

You haven't made a single point against anything I said, just ran your mouth because you're butthurt you want to dick about with guns for any other reason than the creation and maintaining of a well-regulated militia.

If that's what they really meant, then why didn't they enforce it that way? All the things being done with guns that you're pissing your panties about, were all being done back in 1791. Hunting, target shooting, self defense, all of it and then some. They were even cool with dueling. Obviously they considered that all part of the "keep and bear arms" part. They made a lot of laws and amendments after that, but not a single one mentioning any of the things you're crying about. Just because your knees turn to jelly around guns, doesn't mean you get to dictate how they're used. If you don't like it move to a country that better aligns with your values.