View Poll Results: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 20.00%
  • No

    59 78.67%
  • Not sure

    1 1.33%
Page 31 of 136 FirstFirst ... 2129303132334181131 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #301
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,512

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    The image you quoted shows the exact opposite, at least among developed countries.

    I'm more than happy to reduce poverty too.

    Having a gun enhances your ability to commit a crime. The same way we have laws against drug paraphernalia or lock picking tools, guns -- handguns especially -- are tools to commit acts of violence against another citizen.
    I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to misrepresent the data or if you're just unaware of what correlation means. If there were a correlation you'd see most of the high gun ownership countries to the left and the lower ones to the right, but that's not at all what we see. It's also dishonest to compare it only to a few select 1st world countries instead of the whole world, because you're intentionally excluding the very same poverty that makes it a violent country in the first place.


    There is no positive correlation with gun ownership rate and overall muder rate. Feel free to check any of the data in the links.

    If the world were different and you were right that it wasn't poverty causing crime, but rather guns and their magazine sizes, why is it that the poor parts of the city, state, country, and world are almost always dramatically more violent than their richer companions?

  2. #302
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    03-07-18 @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    383

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Well I agree with you that the collective right is a strong argument. But the individual right is equally strong and therefore IMO, both should be advanced.

    The "collective right" (actually an amalgam of the "militia right" and "state's right" theories) was first inserted in the federal courts in 1942 through two lower court opinions; Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) respectively.

    At that time they were already dead theories for if the "collective right" theory was true, -- that as US v Tot said, the 2nd Amendment, "unlike those [other amendments] providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power", then the 2nd had been dead letter for 39 years because the Dick Act in 1903, which negated state militia powers was a REAL "encroachment by the federal power" that rendered the protection spoken of, to the fossil record . .

    If the "collective right" theories (any of them) were true, the anti-individual right argument would be that the 2nd means nothing today to anyone because there are no state militia powers remaining to protect. All this goofy sideshow they engage in wouldn't ever be trotted out because legally, the 2nd would have zero legal effect on any matter before any court.

    Another often overlooked but deadly to the collective right side is that collective right proponents will never be able to explain why there has never been a "collective" or government entity claiming 2nd Amendment protection or ever granted standing to argue a 2nd Amendment claim . . . The only parties ever granted standing in any court to claim a 2nd Amendment immunity have been individuals.

    The collective right interpretation was smoke and mirrors when it was first invented in 1942 and has even less weight today.
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  3. #303
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 08:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Well I agree with you that the collective right is a strong argument. But the individual right is equally strong and therefore IMO, both should be advanced.
    The two are arguably conflicting rather than mutual.
    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    Except for where the Court recognized the individual right to bear arms for individual self defense from the KKK by two former slaves, then US citizens in 1873 Louisiana, a state that at the time had no organized militia, it being disbanded by Congress . . .

    But hey, who's really reading the opinion of the Court?
    I'm not claiming to be a scholar of court history, but the ACLU usually does fairly well at interpreting them, based on their legal record.
    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to misrepresent the data or if you're just unaware of what correlation means. If there were a correlation you'd see most of the high gun ownership countries to the left and the lower ones to the right, but that's not at all what we see. It's also dishonest to compare it only to a few select 1st world countries instead of the whole world, because you're intentionally excluding the very same poverty that makes it a violent country in the first place.


    There is no positive correlation with gun ownership rate and overall muder rate. Feel free to check any of the data in the links.

    If the world were different and you were right that it wasn't poverty causing crime, but rather guns and their magazine sizes, why is it that the poor parts of the city, state, country, and world are almost always dramatically more violent than their richer companions?
    But the US isn't a poverty stricken county. It doesn't make sense to compare us to a poverty stricken country. Our GDP has much more in common with the nations we're compared to.

    I understand what correlation means:

    "A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things."

    The graph I linked to demonstrates a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. You'd prefer to distort that balance by including violent, impoverished nations, but that's not what we're discussing. Honduras isn't as comparable to America as Sweden is.
    "The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon

  4. #304
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,512

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    The two are arguably conflicting rather than mutual.

    I'm not claiming to be a scholar of court history, but the ACLU usually does fairly well at interpreting them, based on their legal record.

    But the US isn't a poverty stricken county. It doesn't make sense to compare us to a poverty stricken country. Our GDP has much more in common with the nations we're compared to.

    I understand what correlation means:

    "A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things."

    The graph I linked to demonstrates a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. You'd prefer to distort that balance by including violent, impoverished nations, but that's not what we're discussing. Honduras isn't as comparable to America as Sweden is.
    Even your original chart doesn't show a correlation, which I pointed out. The gold and black bars would grow towards the left and not be a scrambled mess like it is. You can't just say there's a correlation because we're highest.

    I've asked you a question twice now and you've ignored, but hell, I'll try it one last time. If your theory is correct and it's the existence of guns and not poverty that primarily drives violent crime, why in virtually every instance is the poor part of somewhere substantially more violent than the richer parts? Why does Switzerland have 4 times less violent crime than Germany even though it has dramatically more weapons?

    How exactly is reducing magazine sizes going to prevent violent crime?

  5. #305
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 08:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Even your original chart doesn't show a correlation, which I pointed out. The gold and black bars would grow towards the left and not be a scrambled mess like it is. You can't just say there's a correlation because we're highest.

    I've asked you a question twice now and you've ignored, but hell, I'll try it one last time. If your theory is correct and it's the existence of guns and not poverty that primarily drives violent crime, why in virtually every instance is the poor part of somewhere substantially more violent than the richer parts? Why does Switzerland have 4 times less violent crime than Germany even though it has dramatically more weapons?

    How exactly is reducing magazine sizes going to prevent violent crime?
    I disagree that the chart is a scrambled mess. I find the data to be consistent and compelling.

    I consider Switzerland to be a outlier, why do you consider the US to be an outlier rather than Switzerland?
    "The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon

  6. #306
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,251

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck Ewer View Post
    Telling a gun fetishist that there will be a cap on their magazine volume is like telling an alcoholic that they are on a two drink limit.
    When too much still ain't enough any restriction sounds like the end of the ****ing world.
    You are very wrong. I am not into guns. I own a few and each has a specific purpose. And I consider them like my car....a tool, something I do the minimum to to keep running properly. Your broad assumption is entirely incorrect for gun 'owners.'

    There are legitimate reasons to have larger capacity magazines and it's insulting to think other people should be able to tell us what we need to keep ourselves save.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Wow, magazine capacity bans? That sucks, since my first carry weapon was 17+1 and every single shot could be needed if I was attacked by more than one person. The cops even miss half the time...just watch the videos where they (and suspects) shoot loads of rounds and never even hit each other! Out on my own at nite OR in my home? (And I carry an extra mag)

    (17+1 is a standard for several models of fullsize 9mm semi-autos....not extreme...the norm)

    And you would limit me to 10 rounds, or less? You can go to H e double hockey sticks bub. Nothing like displaying gross indifference for my safety.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    Welfare is a bad thing? It is essentially free money. It is not that bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I look at abortion the same way I do Pineapple Pizza.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #307
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,778

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by mdw99 View Post
    I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution and would like to gather views from US citizens.
    Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
    Many thanks

    I say yes.Mostly to strengthen the individual right to own guns and to add the immediate removal from office,permanent ban from elected and appointed office and lengthy prison sentences for politicians who enact anti-2nd amendment laws.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #308
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    The two are arguably conflicting rather than mutual.

    I'm not claiming to be a scholar of court history, but the ACLU usually does fairly well at interpreting them, based on their legal record.

    But the US isn't a poverty stricken county. It doesn't make sense to compare us to a poverty stricken country. Our GDP has much more in common with the nations we're compared to.

    I understand what correlation means:

    "A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things."

    The graph I linked to demonstrates a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. You'd prefer to distort that balance by including violent, impoverished nations, but that's not what we're discussing. Honduras isn't as comparable to America as Sweden is.
    I disagree. Why in the world would there be conflict between both the individual and collective right to security and defense on a personal and societal level?
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #309
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 08:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I disagree. Why in the world would there be conflict between both the individual and collective right to security and defense on a personal and societal level?
    Collective security is often undermined by individual security.
    "The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon

  10. #310
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    The "collective right" (actually an amalgam of the "militia right" and "state's right" theories) was first inserted in the federal courts in 1942 through two lower court opinions; Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) respectively.

    At that time they were already dead theories for if the "collective right" theory was true, -- that as US v Tot said, the 2nd Amendment, "unlike those [other amendments] providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power", then the 2nd had been dead letter for 39 years because the Dick Act in 1903, which negated state militia powers was a REAL "encroachment by the federal power" that rendered the protection spoken of, to the fossil record . .

    If the "collective right" theories (any of them) were true, the anti-individual right argument would be that the 2nd means nothing today to anyone because there are no state militia powers remaining to protect. All this goofy sideshow they engage in wouldn't ever be trotted out because legally, the 2nd would have zero legal effect on any matter before any court.

    Another often overlooked but deadly to the collective right side is that collective right proponents will never be able to explain why there has never been a "collective" or government entity claiming 2nd Amendment protection or ever granted standing to argue a 2nd Amendment claim . . . The only parties ever granted standing in any court to claim a 2nd Amendment immunity have been individuals.

    The collective right interpretation was smoke and mirrors when it was first invented in 1942 and has even less weight today.
    Well, I just disagree with you. In my estimation, they both are strong arguments. The militia clause, lends itself nicely to the collective and the individual right fits nicely with the individual spirit of several of the other amendments. Frankly, I fail to understand the need for either or. Defense, whether police, National Guard or Military is both rational and practical. And defense of ones self is also rational and practical, and, even natural. And nothing or no one should be able to deny that to anybody. Like Lord of Planar has in his sig line, "I carry a gun because a police officer is too heavy"!
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •