How long will it take to repeal the 2nd amendment?

shiang said:

Cars gets us places, Sex produces future generations. What has guns done?

Click to expand...

Won wars and scared the **** out of miscreant cowards.

shiang said:

As you've seen in this case, the man took his mothers gun. If you want to go hunt or to a shooting range I think that's fine but should be kept by a licensed organization.

Click to expand...

There are other reasons why one would own a firearm like self defense and deterrence.

earthworm said:

Yeah, tell that to those children who were murdered.

Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion fallacy.

shiang said:

The US ranks one of the highest in gun related deaths in the world, and of the top developed countries the highest.

Just google "gun related deaths by country" and find your own sources so as not to include my bias.

How long will it take before a law that's out dated by over 200 years be repealed?

The founding fathers had the intention of arming their militia against the British.

Click to expand...

From here I think there is a chance, purely because I sense a change in US attitudes.

It's complex, people who live rurally can have legitimate reasons to use guns as a work tool. But people in other countries use guns for the same reasons, gun law is much tighter and they don't repeatedly experience massacres by nutcases with open access to guns.

Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) that penny will drop.

Shadow Serious said:

Won wars and scared the **** out of miscreant cowards.

Click to expand...

How many wars would the type of guns US people own, win these days? Really though..

American said:

Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Click to expand...

Attempt to avoid facts.

shiang said:

I don't even know where to start.

Rights and laws? Rights are defined by laws.

You can legally own a gun with minimal requirements because of the 2nd amendment. Go to most other developed nations and you won't find it so easy.

Click to expand...

Only positive rights are defined by laws. Negative rights are not they exist before any structure of law or government. If you want to get into metaphysics then you picked the right topic and you will be debated on it and probably lose.

Of course we can own guns without being harrased by the government due to the 2nd Amendment. And if you go to other nations one will fnd in general that people do not have rights inherent but only those allowed by those in power. And some nations do not reconize the right to free speech, religion, the press or have a right not to incriminate one self at a trial, and etc. So one cannot use the argument that the US should not have a 2nd Amendment right because there are other nations that do not allow so.

shiang said:

Good job we beat the Gangs of Latin America, the Genocides of Africa, and the Mafia of the Russians. Lets pop a campaign bottle.

Iraq does better than the US in this area.

Click to expand...

And we include death by cop as a homicide do the other nations do so?

Viv said:

How many wars would the type of guns US people own, win these days? Really though..

Click to expand...

Given that the 2nd Amendment implies the possession of military grade arms then anything short of nuclear war. You did not think in a war setting that only the guns would be used do you?

The Second amendment will never be repealed. There are way too many people in this country who long for the days of the mythical wild west, when 'real men' were defined by their guns.

Viv said:

How many wars would the type of guns US people own, win these days? Really though..

Click to expand...

Pretty much any. Though more rare these days, there are indeed legally owned fully automatic guns, aka machine guns owned by private individuals. As well as some "artillery" pieces.

We may be limited to the semi-automatic version, but even without conversion to full auto, which actually has very little utility, we own pretty much any type of small arms, that any military owns. Also a few, not so small arms. We also own more of them, with larger stockpiles of ammunition, than all the worlds militaries combined.

Do we own modern fighter jets? No. Do we own modern missile systems? No. Are they required to win a war? No.

The only war we could not win with privately owned arms is a Nuclear War, but then, there is no such thing as a winner in one of those.

shiang said:

Sex produces future generations.

Click to expand...

Homo butt sex doesn't........

Just saying.

Shadow Serious said:

Given that the 2nd Amendment implies the possession of military grade arms then anything short of nuclear war. You did not think in a war setting that only the guns would be used do you?

Click to expand...

Then you are saying you don't need the populace to own guns. You only "need" military grade arms.

DVSentinel said:

Pretty much any. Though more rare these days, there are indeed legally owned fully automatic guns, aka machine guns owned by private individuals. As well as some "artillery" pieces.

We may be limited to the semi-automatic version, but even without conversion to full auto, which actually has very little utility, we own pretty much any type of small arms, that any military owns. Also a few, not so small arms. We also own more of them, with larger stockpiles of ammunition, than all the worlds militaries combined.

Do we own modern fighter jets? No. Do we own modern missile systems? No. Are they required to win a war? No.

The only war we could not win with privately owned arms is a Nuclear War, but then, there is no such thing as a winner in one of those.

Click to expand...

If they are not required to win a war, they are not justified and the amendment people are banging on about seems to relate only to defence. Times have changed and you are no longer required to hold your own arms to defend your country. You pay big bucks for a military force to do that for you.

Why do you want to pay twice?

Governments have WMD and any weapons you may have are nothing by comparison. The only reason any rebel force exists in war is international law or it is a matter of time to close them down. WMD is not deployed because of the public/political/humane aversion to deploying WMD.

US for example, could level ME but chooses not to. Should any government choose to deploy WMD, locally owned weapons would be ineffective. The only effective weapons are militarily held. Your privately held guns are useless for this purpose and no one is taken in by that assertion.

It's not a justification for bearing arms. You will never be called on to deploy your semi automatic in defence of your country.

Viv said:

It's not a justification for bearing arms. You will never be called on to deploy your semi automatic in defence of your country.

Click to expand...

If they try to confiscate them all, you might. Which is the point, after all.

OpportunityCost said:

If they try to confiscate them all, you might. Which is the point, after all.

Click to expand...

Not really. The point I thought, is the safety of children and other innocent people.

With the example of European countries and many, many others, why would US suddenly become incapable of continuing to run a non oppressive state? How much of the US military do you believe would go along with that in reality? And if you're not in fear that your own military (staffed by your own families) would suddenly turn against you and implement a dictator state, then who is it you think is going to do that to you?

It's nonsense, isn't it. Just is not a threat.

Hopefully never.

The Swiss has a gun culture near the level of us (Literally the majority are required to be armed, nearly as high per capita gun ownership, and they host the biggest shooting festival in the world), and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Yes, the nation known for neutrality and peace. We could learn something.

Banning guns isn't the answer, clearly we just need to change up the system. Promoting responsible ownership and so on. I don't own a gun, but may one of these days after doing some firearms training. I've heard of too many stories where owning a gun saved individuals and families from certain evils lurking in the night, I'd hate to think of the opposite happening. The right to bear arms isn't something we should throw away.

Viv said:

If they are not required to win a war, they are not justified and the amendment people are banging on about seems to relate only to defence. Times have changed and you are no longer required to hold your own arms to defend your country. You pay big bucks for a military force to do that for you.

Why do you want to pay twice?

Governments have WMD and any weapons you may have are nothing by comparison. The only reason any rebel force exists in war is international law or it is a matter of time to close them down. WMD is not deployed because of the public/political/humane aversion to deploying WMD.

US for example, could level ME but chooses not to. Should any government choose to deploy WMD, locally owned weapons would be ineffective. The only effective weapons are militarily held. Your privately held guns are useless for this purpose and no one is taken in by that assertion.

It's not a justification for bearing arms. You will never be called on to deploy your semi automatic in defence of your country.

Click to expand...

WMDs aside, only MAD protects against them, and that is a no win scenario.

The Supreme Court has upheld that the 2nd Amendment does apply to personal ownership outside of any "militia".

Not all arms are purchased with the intent of a militia use, either. There are many wild critters in some areas that we need to protect ourselves from. Personally, the only reason I purchased an "assault weapon" was for hunting, due to several medical problems, the ergonomics and weight make it more practical and easier to handle.

The fact that it can be used to hold off thieves and other less desirable persons intent on criminal mischief is only a bonus. If I was poor living in less desirable neighborhoods in a city, it would be very practical for defense also, gangers rarely, if ever come alone. Guns exist, they have always existed here and will continue to do so for a longtime into our future, they are not going away. So we can either find a way to deal with that fact in practical and doable ways or we can continue down the same path we are currently on.

As much as some are wanting to cut military spending and focus upon social spending, I for one, am not willing to bet that in a decade or so, a major portion of our defense will not be upon us private owners of arms. Even if they are never used as a militia weapon, the very thought of more than a 100 million armed civilians who can become guerrilla fighters is enough to give any sane person thinking of invading us nightmares and deters them from think seriously about it.

Viv said:

Not really. The point I thought, is the safety of children and other innocent people.

With the example of European countries and many, many others, why would US suddenly become incapable of continuing to run a non oppressive state? How much of the US military do you believe would go along with that in reality? And if you're not in fear that your own military (staffed by your own families) would suddenly turn against you and implement a dictator state, then who is it you think is going to do that to you?

It's nonsense, isn't it. Just is not a threat.

Click to expand...

The point is a final guard against tyranny, even from your own government. Its ALWAYS been the point.

What makes you think the military will be as loyal to an idea if you begin removing the foundations of the idea? The more beholden to government you become the less resistance you have to government working its will on others. Both of these ideas would be at work---we already have expanding government and if you were to begin to remove the ability of the populace to defend itself you would be left with unchecked government that would incrementally just take more and more rights away "for the greater good".

Peaceful assembly? Cant be peaceful so you cant do it.
Freedom of speech? You are causing unrest that will cause others to break the law so you must be stopped.
Freedom of the press? They are fomenting unrest so they must be controlled.
Freedom of religion? Your religion is harmful to another, you must be fined until you quit.

Etc etc, you can justify anything in the name of safety, but it doesn't make you any more free. Freedom isnt taken away all at once, its taken away one small piece at a time.

Caine said:

Homo butt sex doesn't........

Just saying.

Click to expand...

Neither does hetero butt sex......

Just saying.

Viv said:

If they are not required to win a war, they are not justified and the amendment people are banging on about seems to relate only to defence. Times have changed and you are no longer required to hold your own arms to defend your country. You pay big bucks for a military force to do that for you.

Why do you want to pay twice?

Governments have WMD and any weapons you may have are nothing by comparison. The only reason any rebel force exists in war is international law or it is a matter of time to close them down. WMD is not deployed because of the public/political/humane aversion to deploying WMD.

US for example, could level ME but chooses not to. Should any government choose to deploy WMD, locally owned weapons would be ineffective. The only effective weapons are militarily held. Your privately held guns are useless for this purpose and no one is taken in by that assertion.

It's not a justification for bearing arms. You will never be called on to deploy your semi automatic in defence of your country.

Click to expand...

Ex-President Gorbachev once stated that the only reason they didn't invade the US was because the populace was armed. And that is with in the past 30 years. How many other countries have not invaded due to our populace being armed but haven't openly admitted it?

But that is only ONE reason for our populace to remain armed. Another is to protect ourselves from our government becoming a tyrannical government.

DVSentinel said:

WMDs aside, only MAD protects against them, and that is a no win scenario.

The Supreme Court has upheld that the 2nd Amendment does apply to personal ownership outside of any "militia".

Click to expand...

So the Amendment can be amended (to exclude personal ownership as it was to include it)? You have a military. You don't need a crowd of gun happy loonies with delusions of freedom, running around shooting defenceless schoolchildren in order to gain attention. Save your tax dollar and your children.

Not all arms are purchased with the intent of a militia use, either. There are many wild critters in some areas that we need to protect ourselves from. Personally, the only reason I purchased an "assault weapon" was for hunting, due to several medical problems, the ergonomics and weight make it more practical and easier to handle.

Click to expand...

No different than other countries. UK people live rurally also. The people with a legitimate use, may own an appropriate weapon as it requires to be licensed and secured. These people may not leave automatic or semi weapons lying about for difficult teenagers to use against family members, neighbours and innocent children.

The fact that it can be used to hold off thieves and other less desirable persons intent on criminal mischief is only a bonus. If I was poor living in less desirable neighborhoods in a city, it would be very practical for defense also, gangers rarely, if ever come alone. Guns exist, they have always existed here and will continue to do so for a longtime into our future, they are not going away. So we can either find a way to deal with that fact in practical and doable ways or we can continue down the same path we are currently on.

Click to expand...

:dohDo you think potential crime and teenagers don't exist in other countries? This is just laziness. Resolve the social issues. If you stop double payment of gun ownership and military, you may be able to fund an effective Police force to do what it should be doing for you.

As much as some are wanting to cut military spending and focus upon social spending, I for one, am not willing to bet that in a decade or so, a major portion of our defense will not be upon us private owners of arms. Even if they are never used as a militia weapon, the very thought of more than a 100 million armed civilians who can become guerrilla fighters is enough to give any sane person thinking of invading us nightmares and deters them from think seriously about it.

Click to expand...

No one is seriously thinking about it and the only people who have attempted it in recent years were not deterred by that, but are prevented by your protective security services.

There is no excuse for it other than an immature wish to play with guns. The culture needs to grow up.

OpportunityCost said:

The point is a final guard against tyranny, even from your own government. Its ALWAYS been the point.

Click to expand...

The point of it was to arm Protestants, when Catholics were already armed. That didn't relate to your government, it related to James 2nd.

However, if you are still afraid the UK (your ex-Government) will storm the Whitehouse and make you all take afternoon tea on a daily basis, hold onto your personal arms.

What makes you think the military will be as loyal to an idea if you begin removing the foundations of the idea? The more beholden to government you become the less resistance you have to government working its will on others. Both of these ideas would be at work---we already have expanding government and if you were to begin to remove the ability of the populace to defend itself you would be left with unchecked government that would incrementally just take more and more rights away "for the greater good".

Click to expand...

....and that's what happens in Europe and all the other Westernised countries where people have no interest whatsoever in guns.

Not.

The people don't need guns to motivate politicians. The people wield power just by existing and a Government set up to be accountable is all you require. Of course despite the politically correct smoke screens, your political system isn't exactly accountable to the people, more the people with money.

Peaceful assembly? Cant be peaceful so you cant do it.
Freedom of speech? You are causing unrest that will cause others to break the law so you must be stopped.
Freedom of the press? They are fomenting unrest so they must be controlled.
Freedom of religion? Your religion is harmful to another, you must be fined until you quit.

Etc etc, you can justify anything in the name of safety, but it doesn't make you any more free. Freedom isnt taken away all at once, its taken away one small piece at a time.

Click to expand...

I see the gun lobby trying to take it away from Piers Morgan, whilst not appearing overly concerned by the public threat your current gun law plainly constitutes against the people.

Kal'Stang said:

Ex-President Gorbachev once stated that the only reason they didn't invade the US was because the populace was armed. And that is with in the past 30 years. How many other countries have not invaded due to our populace being armed but haven't openly admitted it?

But that is only ONE reason for our populace to remain armed. Another is to protect ourselves from our government becoming a tyrannical government.

Click to expand...

No one can even remember Gorbie. He's history and no one was ever afraid of him to begin with, the most West-friendly President ever. However, the US has the strongest military force in the world. Why would it fear attack from the gang that can't shoot straight? And what makes you think the peasants revolting is more intimidating than the strongest military force in the world?

No logic whatsoever in any of that.

Viv said:

Attempt to avoid facts.

Click to expand...

there are no facts one can use to claim gun bans or UK style laws would do anything positive in the USA (disarming citizens and making them criminals might be seen as a positive to some)

Scottish Whites are more violent per capita than white Americans btw. I think Scotland is one of the more violent first world nations there is

TurtleDude said:

there are no facts one can use to claim gun bans or UK style laws would do anything positive in the USA (disarming citizens and making them criminals might be seen as a positive to some)

Click to expand...

You mean you have no facts you can use to disclaim it.

Scottish Whites are more violent per capita than white Americans btw. I think Scotland is one of the more violent first world nations there is

Click to expand...

And yet the murder stats are lower. Imagine what would be happening if we had guns. :doh

The point of it was to arm Protestants, when Catholics were already armed. That didn't relate to your government, it related to James 2nd.

However, if you are still afraid the UK (your ex-Government) will storm the Whitehouse and make you all take afternoon tea on a daily basis, hold onto your personal arms.

Click to expand...

The idea in the US constitution was to have an armed populace to be able to form a defense against any enemy both within and without---with no notice. It was a final block against government over reach because they got to observe it first hand against England. Your premise and your mockery is noted and dismissed.