🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Webfoot Hero]

And what does any of this have to do with guns? If you want to attack political parties over other issues, you should probably do it in a more appropriate thread.

 

[Marvolo]

This song perfectly sums up the mentality of a lot of gun owners on the Right.

[Yt]LQdUAMrcEnw[/MEDIA]

 

[Donner]

And what does any of this have to do with guns? If you want to attack political parties over other issues, you should probably do it in a more appropriate thread.

Just that, generally, the NRA and gun nuts support the very politicians most likely to take away their rights. It's ironic.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Expedia to no longer advertise on Laura Ingraham's show in wake of her attack on Parkland High School student

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Just that, generally, the NRA and gun nuts support the very politicians most likely to take away their rights. It's ironic.

Really? Which party's members are openly talking about repealing an amendment from the Bill of Rights? It's certainly not the Republicans. Here's the head of the Louisiana Democratic party tweeting about doing away with the 2A by linking to the NYT Op-Ed from a retired Supreme Court justice:

She's not alone as plenty of liberal-minded folks on Twitter, at the rallies, op-ed articles were/are saying exactly the same thing.

 

[Donner]

I'm not talking about the second amendment. I'm talking about other rights.

Like the people who have no problem with prisoners being tortured as long as they have an AR15. Or that government agencies spy on them in the name of "protecting" them. Or that people go broke paying their medical bills.

But no no, your guns are the most important right to protect.

 

[Thundercrack85]

And what does any of this have to do with guns? If you want to attack political parties over other issues, you should probably do it in a more appropriate thread.

Sorry, I should have made that simpler.

The people who want guns to stop government tyranny are usually the ones who support government policies that lead to tyranny.

So you will forgive me if I find that a stupid reason for a person to own a firearm collection which will much more likely be misused to shoot a bunch of people.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Sorry, I should have made that simpler.

The people who want guns to stop government tyranny are usually the ones who support government policies that lead to tyranny.

So you will forgive me if I find that a stupid reason for a person to own a firearm collection which will much more likely be misused to shoot a bunch of people.

To be fair most politicians on both sides who aren’t on the fringes of their selective political party support the NSA and government monitoring of our population. They might speak otherwise, but they are constantly signing legislation that negates their words. Personally I support Rand Paul.

I think Jefferson said something along the lines of a country that trades freedom for security deserves neither.

 

[Marvolo]

Really? Which party's members are openly talking about repealing an amendment from the Bill of Rights? It's certainly not the Republicans. Here's the head of the Louisiana Democratic party tweeting about doing away with the 2A by linking to the NYT Op-Ed from a retired Supreme Court justice:

She's not alone as plenty of liberal-minded folks on Twitter, at the rallies, op-ed articles were/are saying exactly the same thing.

While we're at it lets get rid of modern bullets and make civilians use ball and powder. Modern bullets are used by the military and are to easy too load. We can outlaw modern scopes too since they are used by the military and make it easier to kill people. Only iron sights for civilians.

 

[Thundercrack85]

To be fair most politicians on both sides who aren’t on the fringes of their selective political party support the NSA and government monitoring of our population. They might speak otherwise, but they are constantly signing legislation that negates their words. Personally I support Rand Paul.

I think Jefferson said something along the lines of a country that trades freedom for security deserves neither.

Ben Franklin.

But I don't think that AR-15s were really in the picture when they made the 2nd amendment. A few dozen AR-15s would have changed the outcome of a major battle.

 

[moviedoors]

I'm not for repealing the 2nd Amendment just in the name of pragmatism. But, I do find it crazy how much reverent faith we put in a document written centuries ago with feathers by men that owned other people.

 

[Sithborg]

A document designed to be modified and changed.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Ben Franklin.

But I don't think that AR-15s were really in the picture when they made the 2nd amendment. A few dozen AR-15s would have changed the outcome of a major battle.

Lol, nah I think they were thinking more about canons.
You’re right though about that though. The rate of fire is drastically increased, Lever action rifles won the civil war.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

A document designed to be modified and changed.

This is the part that gets me.

 

[Marvolo]

A document designed to be modified and changed.

A document that already has 27 Amendments. I honestly think some Americans don't realize that Amendments are changes/additions and were not a part of the original constitution. It's as if they think the Amendments were created by special people in a special time and that time has ended and no one should make anymore changes.

 

[Teelie]

Not only that but I believe two Amendments actually repeal previous ones. I know for a fact one repealed Prohibition although I can't remember what the second one repealed. I still think the Bill of Rights (the first 10) are too important to repeal. Modify if necessary at best but as I said before, interpetation is more important than repeal.

 

[SV Fan]

Not only that but I believe two Amendments actually repeal previous ones. I know for a fact one repealed Prohibition although I can't remember what the second one repealed. I still think the Bill of Rights (the first 10) are too important to repeal. Modify if necessary at best but as I said before, interpetation is more important than repeal.

I am not saying repeal the 2nd amendment but anybody who puts guns as the second most important right you have, has their priorities wrong.

I actually do agree with you modifying might be an better option then repeal. Basically something like you have the right to own a gun within reason. The whole militia aspect of the 2nd amendment is something that is completely out of date

 

[Herofan]

When we say 'we want tighter gun regulations' NRA people say, 'THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!'

Then when we say, hey we don't want to prevent you from owning a pistol to protect yourself in the confines of your own property, you'll say 'Well now all these regulations are so petty and full of loopholes and bad guys will still get guns so we shouldn't do anything'

I don't think there are a lot of voices saying the latter, instead they say we should enforce existing regulations and controls better before going from badly-enforced regulations to unconstitutional ban. Being against a ban doesn't logically demand you must support every additional regulation proposed.

To which I say: Well, if you want things simple and effective, we should maybe just TAKE ALL THE GUNS. BECAUSE THAT IS SIMPLE. AND EFFECTIVE. And it's not fantasy. It's the living truth in every comparable democratic government. The UK and Australia didn't seem to turn into anti-democratic tyrannies after giving up their firearms.

That they're not tyrannies doesn't mean individual rights weren't reduced and that that and having less ability to defend yourself should be considered no big deal.

But you know what they DO seem to have? Virtually negligible gun death rates.

Interesting given that Canada still has a high rate of gun ownership and I believe Australia had a low gun death rate even before it reduced its gun ownership.

But people still stick to the NRA narrative that we'll all be eating Soylent Green the minute we allow 'The Government'-- which, by the way, traditionally represents 'The People'--to take away all your toys.

And that's what they are. Toys.

You don't need a newspaper or a television show or a radio talk show or a church or mosque to eat, and ending one or all of them also wouldn't lead to making people into food, but it would nonetheless be unjust for the government to ban one because 51% or 60% of the people's representatives decided it should be taken away.

 

[CaptainWagner]

I'm not for repealing the 2nd Amendment just in the name of pragmatism. But, I do find it crazy how much reverent faith we put in a document written centuries ago with feathers by men that owned other people.

A document designed to be modified and changed.

A document that already has 27 Amendments. I honestly think some Americans don't realize that Amendments are changes/additions and were not a part of the original constitution. It's as if they think the Amendments were created by special people in a special time and that time has ended and no one should make anymore changes.

^^^THIS. All of this. It's ridiculous the way The Right has come to treat the Constitution as some sort of sacred, unalterable text. And this nonsense has permeated the general culture as a whole. The Founders would be horrified to know that 200 years later, our government would be acting like the only relevant political thought happened in the 18th century and that attempts to change, clarify, or add to their intentionally vague blueprint would be treated viewed as nigh-sacriligious.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Interesting given that Canada still has a high rate of gun ownership and I believe Australia had a low gun death rate even before it reduced its gun ownership

Interesting thing is that in Canada the requirements for gun ownership are much more strict.

Here's how gun control works in Canada

 

[DKDetective]

Interesting thing is that in Canada the requirements for gun ownership are much more strict.

Here's how gun control works in Canada

Yep, and like in every other civilized country, Canadians do not have a constitutional right to firearms, and if we did, there is no way our courts would ever give it the ridiculous, illogical interpretation that the US Supreme Court has given the Second Amendment.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.

 

[chaseter]

Interesting thing is that in Canada the requirements for gun ownership are much more strict.

Here's how gun control works in Canada

Mexico has stricter gun control laws than the US. That’s not really working out for them.

Canada borders the US. The US borders Mexico. I’ll give you one guess as to which of the two, Canada or the US, would have little to no impact on criminals getting guns if more laws were passed.

I’m for sensible reform...but comparing the US to Canada or Australia is silly (in relation to gun laws). We are way too far gone to repeal the second amendment and it should be my right to defend my house and home (within reason) so the nuts saying repeal are just as idiotic as the nuts that want a bazooka to hunt with (not saying that’s you, just in general).

 

[Sithborg]

[looks at the next generation]

Keep on believing that we are too far gone to repeal, or majorly restrict, the 2nd amendment.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Mexico has stricter gun control laws than the US. That’s not really working out for them.

Canada borders the US. The US borders Mexico. I’ll give you one guess as to which of the two, Canada or the US, would have little to no impact on criminals getting guns if more laws were passed.

I’m for sensible reform...but comparing the US to Canada or Australia is silly (in relation to gun laws). We are way too far gone to repeal the second amendment and it should be my right to defend my house and home (within reason) so the nuts saying repeal are just as idiotic as the nuts that want a bazooka to hunt with (not saying that’s you, just in general).

We don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says we can have as many guns as we want without restriction. That is how gun nuts are choosing to interpret the 2nd Amendment. That is how the NRA chooses to use the 2nd Amendment to justify their position. The text itself does not support that.

 

[chaseter]

[looks at the next generation]

Keep on believing that we are too far gone to repeal, or majorly restrict, the 2nd amendment.

Seeing as the next generation are cyber bullying kids to cause their peers to kill themselves over Facebook, I’m not sure we are all going to be better off as long as we keep blaming the tool. Mass shooters don’t typically fit a profile, which means it’s a mental health problem. I’ve seen none of these action groups calling for better mental healthcare or awareness alongside gun control. Every generation is selfish and blames someone or something else and the next is no different. They don’t truly care about suicide awareness and prevention. They don’t care about reporting odd social behavior that leads to mass shootings. They abdicate responsibility onto an inanimate object. Why? Because it’s easier to place responsibility on an inanimate object. Then when government fails us, like at Parkland, they want more government?

When the next generation proposes sensible reform that also addresses the cause, they’ll get sweeping reform. That happened with Civil Rights, that happened with suffrage, etc. I don’t see that yet.