The Second Amendment - Discuss

[lickin_starfish 1,934]

Life is all cost/benefit. Your safety is a product of a number of factors. Probably the biggest is where you live. Probably the least of which is whether you have a gun. If you live in a safe area, the cost/benefit equation of keeping a gun in your home with small children around is alot different than living in a hellhole, with only adults in the household.

 

In my mind the costs by orders of magnitude outweight the benefits, so keeping guns out of the house IMO greatly increase the safety of the family.

So don't own guns. Simple.

 

I'll be keeping mine, thank you.

[NorthernVike 2,085]

You can have my guns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you pry them from my cold dead hands.

[NorthernVike 2,085]

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

 

Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said:

“War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

 

Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said:

"I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me."

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century's most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that could never happen here, right?

[Strike 5,515]

Life is all cost/benefit. Your safety is a product of a number of factors. Probably the biggest is where you live. Probably the least of which is whether you have a gun. If you live in a safe area, the cost/benefit equation of keeping a gun in your home with small children around is alot different than living in a hellhole, with only adults in the household.

 

In my mind the costs by orders of magnitude outweight the benefits, so keeping guns out of the house IMO greatly increase the safety of the family.

 

That's a perfectly reasonable position. However, this isn't about what makes you safer. It's about whether someone should be able to make that choice for themself, no matter how irrational you might think that decision is.

[LOD01 198]

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

 

Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said:

“War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

 

Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said:

"I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me."

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century's most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.

 

But that could never happen here, right?

Pretty sure the US govt doesn't need to round up guns to exterminate millions if they wanted to...

https://www.popsci.com/pentagon-drone-swarm-autonomous-war-machines

 

.....and they wouldn't lose a single soldier. That being said, no, it won't happen here.

[supermike80 1,899]

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

 

Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said:

“War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

 

Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said:

"I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me."

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century's most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that could never happen here, right?

2 thoughts to this argument that comes up a lot.

1) I don't think if Jews were allowed to have guns that they would have prevented the Holocaust. There was just no simple one size fits all solution to that tragedy

2) If the US government wants to take your ass down, you are going down. They have far far more firepower that you do, or your community does and if they want you, they gonna get ya. Guns or no guns.

 

So when people use that argument for guns, I have to say nah. Protecting your home against an intruder? Sure--now that I see. But not the gubberment

[DankNuggs 305]

 

That's a perfectly reasonable position. However, this isn't about what makes you safer. It's about whether someone should be able to make that choice for themself, no matter how irrational you might think that decision is.

I don't believe we should take away the choice. I think we need to be responsible about it. With freedom comes personal responsibility. If you make that choice, as the gun owner you should be liable for ANYTHING that happens with that gun. Someone get a hold of it and an accident or crime happens, its not an 'accident', you are liable.

 

We should be reasonable about trying to stop crazy people from getting guns. Background checks, close loop holes, etc... And we should be reasonable about certain types of weapons that don't belong in civilian hands

[LOD01 198]

How do you know this?

Because that's what they did in the 1700's to murderers. They didn't around for years before executing them.

 

.

[Mike Honcho 5,259]

2 thoughts to this argument that comes up a lot.

1) I don't think if Jews were allowed to have guns that they would have prevented the Holocaust. There was just no simple one size fits all solution to that tragedy

2) If the US government wants to take your ass down, you are going down. They have far far more firepower that you do, or your community does and if they want you, they gonna get ya. Guns or no guns.

 

So when people use that argument for guns, I have to say nah. Protecting your home against an intruder? Sure--now that I see. But not the gubberment

 

 

So did the German Army, so did Stalin and so on and so on....

[penultimatestraw 473]

For the most part, whether you are pro 2nd amendment or pro gun regulation, I believe that you are so because you believe that your position makes the world safer. If 10,000 people each year die each year due to fire arms, pro 2nds say thank god, without guns that number would be 100,000, pro regulation say without guns that number would be 0. Just giving an opinion there with exaggerations to show the point. I don't know the right answer. I also don't think the 2nd amendment is going anywhere soon, but it will be regulated immensely in the future. Really, right now, everyone on some level believes in regulation with regard to arms. What always needs to stop is bad arguments, for example, I need my guns to fight against a tyrannical govt. You're losing that fight..stop it.

Good post. While nobody knows the correct answer, the data we have suggests more guns = more deaths. This holds true domestically and abroad. As counterintuitive as it may seem, no data supports personal firearms increasing safety on the societal level.

 

Yet, like so many other issues, our pompous exceptionalism makes us think individual gun owners in America know better.

[penultimatestraw 473]

We can debate what should be written but if getting all 2018 on the 2nd we should get 2018 on all of em.

Sure. Let's address them one at a time.

[Mike Honcho 5,259]

What I have always found interesting about this debate and question is how the "originalists' (generally found on the right) seem to ignore the evidence, documents of why the 2nd Amendment was created, and leap to the conclusion that it bestows an individual right to everyone. Not only did the FF's deem that some people only counted as 3/5s of a person, when they said the "people" that didn't mean everybody. Look at voting, the states decided who consisted of the 'people' and mostly that meant land owners or taxpayers. I find it quite the leap then that the 2nd amendment means all the people.

[Cdub100 3,901]

Cold dead hands...

[Alias Detective 1,398]

Sure. Let's address them one at a time.

 

Great. Start with numero uno.

[Cdub100 3,901]

What I have always found interesting about this debate and question is how the "originalists' (generally found on the right) seem to ignore the evidence, documents of why the 2nd Amendment was created, and leap to the conclusion that it bestows an individual right to everyone. Not only did the FF's deem that some people only counted as 3/5s of a person, when they said the "people" that didn't mean everybody. Look at voting, the states decided who consisted of the 'people' and mostly that meant land owners or taxpayers. I find it quite the leap then that the 2nd amendment means all the people.

 

You're right "at the time" We have sense changed that to mean all people white brown black green blue. Male and Female. Land owners and renters. "at the time" they had to compromise with people.

 

All free people of THIS land has the right to keep and bear arms.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Great. Start with numero uno.

OK. You wanna start a separate thread to discuss what you think the FA intended, how it might be misinterpreted, and how we should change it to reflect modern society?

[DankNuggs 305]

Good post. While nobody knows the correct answer, the data we have suggests more guns = more deaths. This holds true domestically and abroad. As counterintuitive as it may seem, no data supports personal firearms increasing safety on the societal level.

 

Yet, like so many other issues, our pompous exceptionalism makes us think individual gun owners in America know better.

It isn't counterintuitive at all... If you think about it, if you own a home defense weapon, it only becomes relevant in the event you have to use it. All other times it just exists as a liability. When you have to use it, the crime has ALREADY been committed. e.g. the robber is in your house. The home defense weapon is used in RESPONSE to a crime, not a deterrant.

 

Its really a remote scenario amongst remote scenarios for when you use the gun and it really made the difference in your personal safety... If the robber was unarmed and ran away, well chances are your safety wasn't really in jeopardy, they were looking to steal and run. You are talking about a scenario with an armed intruder prepared to use it against you that you overwhelmed with your own firepower. Whats that? a coinflip on who is getting shot, maybe both parties.

 

I'm failing to see where the safety comes into play. Maybe .1% of the time.... 99.99% of the time you just have a liability that might get taken, stolen, misused, accidents. etc.

[Mike Honcho 5,259]

 

You're right "at the time" We have sense changed that to mean all people white brown black green blue. Male and Female. Land owners and renters. "at the time" they had to compromise with people.

 

All free people of THIS land has the right to keep and bear arms.

 

The point I was making that the 'right' bestowed, IMO is bestowed to a subset of the people as defined by the prefatory clause of the amendment(the militia).

 

IMO, since we don't have state militias anymore, this amendment really doesn't even apply to the current country generally and is obsolete(of course that means I vehemently disagree with the decision found in Heller). So that's the pickle we find ourselves in...

[TimmySmith 2,782]

What I have always found interesting about this debate and question is how the "originalists' (generally found on the right) seem to ignore the evidence, documents of why the 2nd Amendment was created, and leap to the conclusion that it bestows an individual right to everyone. Not only did the FF's deem that some people only counted as 3/5s of a person, when they said the "people" that didn't mean everybody. Look at voting, the states decided who consisted of the 'people' and mostly that meant land owners or taxpayers. I find it quite the leap then that the 2nd amendment means all the people.

Then it would make total sense that the 1st applies the same. Yet we bestow 1st amendment rights on individuals.

[Alias Detective 1,398]

OK. You wanna start a separate thread to discuss what you think the FA intended, how it might be misinterpreted, and how we should change it to reflect modern society?

I don't. :shrug:

[Mike Honcho 5,259]

Then it would make total sense that the 1st applies the same. Yet we bestow 1st amendment rights on individuals.

 

Read my second statement on the prefatory clause.

[penultimatestraw 473]

It isn't counterintuitive at all... If you think about it, if you own a home defense weapon, it only becomes relevant in the event you have to use it. All other times it just exists as a liability. When you have to use it, the crime has ALREADY been committed. e.g. the robber is in your house. The home defense weapon is used in RESPONSE to a crime, not a deterrant.

 

Its really a remote scenario amongst remote scenarios for when you use the gun and it really made the difference in your personal safety... If the robber was unarmed and ran away, well chances are your safety wasn't really in jeopardy, they were looking to steal and run. You are talking about a scenario with an armed intruder prepared to use it against you that you overwhelmed with your own firepower. Whats that? a coinflip on who is getting shot, maybe both parties.

 

I'm failing to see where the safety comes into play. Maybe .1% of the time.... 99.99% of the time you just have a liability that might get taken, stolen, misused, accidents. etc.

I agree with everything your typed, but I wish the gun-toting nimrods would take a second to critically evaluate what their firearms add to the equation. It's an individual right, but the downside of gun ownership impacts everyone.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I don't. :shrug:

Seconded! Let's move on to number 2.

[Cdub100 3,901]

 

The point I was making that the 'right' bestowed, IMO is bestowed to a subset of the people as defined by the prefatory clause of the amendment(the militia).

 

IMO, since we don't have state militias anymore, this amendment really doesn't even apply to the current country generally and is obsolete(of course that means I vehemently disagree with the decision found in Heller). So that's the pickle we find ourselves in...

 

The right is NOT bestowed on the people. It right is God given and against the government from intruding on OUR God given right to keep and bear arms.

 

We the people have compromised that God given right and like every totalitarian government we the people give an inch they take a mile. There will be no more compromise. Zero ground will be given.

[lickin_starfish 1,934]

It's not law abiding gun owners who are the problem, it's the criminals. HTH.

 

Let's say you got your way, and rounded up every last gun and bullet in the US, then what? Illegal guns and munitions would flow over the border that liberals want to keep wide open for every Juan, , and Harry to cross illegally.

[Cdub100 3,901]

It's not law abiding gun owners who are the problem, it's the criminals. HTH.

 

Let's say you got your way, and rounded up every last gun and bullet in the US, then what? Illegal guns and munitions would flow over the border that liberals want to keep wide open for every Juan, ######, and Harry to cross illegally.

 

Liberals are funny like that. When you suggest banning abortions than only illegal abortions will happen. When you say ban drugs only illegal drugs will exists. When someone suggest banning guns magically they all disappear.

[5-Points 3,521]

The 2A wasn't intended to be about personal defense weapons. It was given, at the time, that people had the right to defend their families and homes with deadly force if necessary.

 

The 2A was intended to guarantee that the people had the tools necessary to defend their state of freedom.

 

That's my take anyway but I'm not on the Supreme Court so my take means sh!t.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Read my second statement on the prefatory clause.

Militia is a somewhat antiquated term. In WWI and WW2 the US brought up every single able bodied man for action. Those men were in no militia, and yet essentially they were, weren't they.

 

 

They also said "all men are created equal". The document is not hypocritical, it speaks to a higher potential they hadn't reached but hoped we would eventually. I don't think that's a leap.

[penultimatestraw 473]

It's not law abiding gun owners who are the problem, it's the criminals. HTH.

 

Let's say you got your way, and rounded up every last gun and bullet in the US, then what? Illegal guns and munitions would flow over the border that liberals want to keep wide open for every Juan, ######, and Harry to cross illegally.

For the umpteenth time, no one is suggesting confiscating all weapons and ammunition.

[tanatastic 2,062]

It’s fine by me, because I know it won’t change. You can have your guns. I won’t have guns and thus my chances of being shot are drastically lower than those that do. You do you.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,382]

The 2A wasn't intended to be about personal defense weapons. It was given, at the time, that people had the right to defend their families and homes with deadly force if necessary.

 

The 2A was intended to guarantee that the people had the tools necessary to defend their state of freedom.

 

That's my take anyway but I'm not on the Supreme Court so my take means sh!t.

I don't think westward expansion happens without guns in the hands of citizens. It's crazy to think that people shouldn't be given the ability to defend themselves. But it's also crazy to think it should be so easy to get one. And it is in a lot of places.

[Casual Observer 597]

Good post. While nobody knows the correct answer, the data we have suggests more guns = more deaths. This holds true domestically and abroad. As counterintuitive as it may seem, no data supports personal firearms increasing safety on the societal level.

 

Yet, like so many other issues, our pompous exceptionalism makes us think individual gun owners in America know better.

More guns in the hands of certain people=more deaths. That data is there for those who care to discern.

[Casual Observer 597]

 

The right is NOT bestowed on the people. It right is God given and against the government from intruding on OUR God given right to keep and bear arms.

 

We the people have compromised that God given right and like every totalitarian government we the people give an inch they take a mile. There will be no more compromise. Zero ground will be given.

I agree with your position, but I think too much ground has been given already, at least in some places. Here in NY, I have to keep my shotgun in a locked gun safe and it must be unloaded. If someone kicks in my door at 3 AM, I have to get my shotgun out of the locked safe, then load it and hope I can do so before an intruder gets to me or my family.

[penultimatestraw 473]

More guns in the hands of certain people=more deaths. That data is there for those who care to discern.

True. Homicidal, suicidal, careless and accident-prone people. Problem is, those labels apply to more gun owners than "expert marksman shooting intruder" or "patriot staving off oppressive government."

[Hardcore troubadour 15,382]

True. Homicidal, suicidal, careless and accident-prone people. Problem is, those labels apply to more gun owners than "expert marksman shooting intruder" or "patriot staving off oppressive government."

And people on psych meds and opiates. They shouldn't have guns.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I agree with your position, but I think too much ground has been given already, at least in some places. Here in NY, I have to keep my shotgun in a locked gun safe and it must be unloaded. If someone kicks in my door at 3 AM, I have to get my shotgun out of the locked safe, then load it and hope I can do so before an intruder gets to me or my family.

If you believe that loaded shotgun bestows so much safety to your loved ones, buy a safe but keep the gun where you see fit. How in the world could anyone prove you ignored the law when your kid accidentally shoots himself?

[penultimatestraw 473]

And people on psych meds and opiates. They shouldn't have guns.

I think the evidence exists only for certain psych meds, but even that is debatable. I'm unaware of anything which says opioid users are more violent. Any drug abuser is willing to engage in criminal behavior, of course, but I think you are painting in too broad strokes.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,382]

I think the evidence exists only for certain psych meds, but even that is debatable. I'm unaware of anything which says opioid users are more violent. Any drug abuser is willing to engage in criminal behavior, of course, but I think you are painting in too broad strokes.

So someone is ill enough to put them on psych meds, but it's ok for them to have a gun. I guess you're assuming they will always take their meds. Pro tip: They don't. So when they are off their meds, they are just mentally ill at that point. Mentally ill people should never, ever have guns

[wiffleball 4,790]

What type of man outsources the safety of himself and his family to people he doesnt even know when it has been proven that local police, the FBI, the CIA, etc. can be and have been politically compromised?

 

Jesus, somebody needs to step away from the Breitbart machine.

 

Criminal breaking into home equipped with his homemade rape bag for the daughter and wife especially.

 

Two cops roll up on the scene. Hey let's stop him!

 

No wait up Harvey, do you see that? That homeowner has an Obama sticker on his car. Let's go ahead and let that criminal rape his wife and daughters!

 

Well trump did say that Obama wiretapped him.

 

Do they even do wiretap anymore?

 

Doesn't matter. This snowflake liberal is about to get what he deserves. We only work for people who agree with us politically. Trump told us so!

 

Okay, now are we Republicans or trumpets or libtards?

 

Oh, not sure. Oh hell, the guys black. Let's go shoot him anyway.

 

Jeezus.. excellent thread.

 

Make sure you summarize this and send it in to Gorsuch so we can get that whole Constitution thing taken care of by week's end.

[penultimatestraw 473]

So someone is ill enough to put them on psych meds, but it's ok for them to have a gun. I guess you're assuming they will always take their meds. Pro tip: They don't. So when they are off their meds, they are just mentally ill at that point.

Here's another pro tip: most people with psychiatric illness aren't more violent that the general population, on their meds or not. If you're concerned about suicide, I can get on board with that, but the "S" word seems to rile up most posters on this bored.