1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Interesting question about Second Amendment

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by anthonythegamer, Jun 22, 2016.

  1. AlamoCity

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    This is actually very interesting because it is something that staunch originalists of the constitution fail to realize in the most ironic manner; they have to take the constitution and put it in the modern era and yet when it suits them the constitution isn't a "living document."
     
  2. Skaros

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    All but family
    Well, the second amendment does use the term "well regulated". In context, it's logical for us to use reasonable regulations with guns.


    Also, I'm sure nobody is trying to make the argument that the second amendment only applies to muskets. They are just using it as an example to show that it's ridiculous to think the founding fathers would have expected guns and our gun culture to be what it is today. I myself have no problem with guns. I just think we're seriously lacking in proper legislation.
     
    #3 Skaros, Jun 22, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  3. What many people say there are in favor of is to get guns out of the wrong hands. I believe that as long as you pass just one comprehensive background check, you can get a gun, and not only would you be able to keep in your own house, you should be able to carry it outside.

    The problem is that leftists want additional regulations on top of background checks, including registration, restrictions on magazine capacity, waiting periods, and silencer bans. I thought the whole point was to get the guns out of the wrong hands, not make the guns harder to get for those in good hands.
     
  4. Kira

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Georgia
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Some people
    When you claim to love something to the full extent, you should also read it to the full extent. But these are often the people who don't read their own holy book, yes?

    So you either lose mass murder or Westboro, which is it? :thumbsup:
     
  5. timo

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    2,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    berlin
    As a non-US citizen, even this seems not restricting enough.

    Your gun culture is seriously crazy.
     
  6. gravechild

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    110
    Gender:
    Androgyne
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    If it were up to me, they'd be banned completely, but such a measure would no doubt provoke a civil war. :confused:
     
  7. Tbh, what is so bad about gun culture in general?
     
    #8 anthonythegamer, Jun 23, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2016
  8. Skaros

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    All but family
    Waiting periods are important in making sure suicidal people have enough to time "think about their decisions". Keep in mind the method of suicide is important. Most people who attempt it don't die of suicide, but guns make it hard to get that second chance. Secondly, many suicidal people can also be homicidal, so the waiting period is a way to give people time to think about their decisions.

    I also don't see the problem with a ban on a silencer. It seems like something that benefits a killer more than it benefits a law abiding citizen.

    ---------- Post added 23rd Jun 2016 at 06:57 PM ----------

    Our gun culture is because the NRA has brainwashed so many people. A lot of people have the mentality that gun control = ban all guns. They also think that if we can't prevent 100% of mass shootings, then any regulation is not worth it. It's an all or nothing mentality that is getting us nowhere.

    ---------- Post added 23rd Jun 2016 at 06:58 PM ----------


    Nothing. It's just that we view guns in all the wrong ways. Yes, they can be fun for sport. Yes, they can be necessary for protection. However, the way we as Americans see guns makes us think that any sort of regulation is a violation of the second amendment (which it isn't).
     
    #9 Skaros, Jun 23, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2016
  9. Shorthaul

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2016
    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    231
    Location:
    Idaho
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I would like to point out not all gun owners are as ridiculous as most people view us. For that matter not all gun owners support the NRA. The NRA has a membership of 2-4 million people, I couldn't find an actual figure. And the best guess I could find of people who own guns is between 25%-35% of the 330,000,000 people living in the states. So the NRA doesn't represent a majority of us.

    Because I am proud to admit I am pro gun and own them, and have never sent a single cent to the NRA. I know it is a comparison people in other Countries do not like but, as an example the entire United Kingdom, has a population around 60 million. The state of Wyoming is roughly the same size as the entire United Kingdom by square miles and has under 500,000 people.

    97,812 square miles with less than half a million people. There are more people on the island of Manhattan than the entire state of Wyoming. The thing people in other countries and even the densely populated east coast forget is just how much nothing there is out here west of the Mississippi. Hunting and fishing are major sources of income for many states. While most animals are spooked off, the threat of being attacked by animals is still a real thing in parts of these states. And I am not even referring to just the predatory animals, a female moose protecting her calf won't screw around. Coyotes and wolves attacking live stock, horses and pets are rare, but happen.

    The culture as a whole is different between different parts of the country. If you come visit Idaho, set your clock back fifty years. I got stuck behind a combine rolling down the interstate under its own power. The top speed of one of those is about 15mph maybe 20mph if its rolling down hill.

    That being said, as a gun owner and a rational human being. I am down for back ground checks, registration and even waiting periods. I don't think the solution is more guns.

    I think what we need is better education and training. We have the largest armed forces of any where, most are trained in unarmed combat. Why not have them train club, bar, school security, so they can counter a shooter. It is hard for someone to kill dozens of people if someone bashes their head in with a chair or bar stool after the first few shots are fired.
     
  10. killswitch0029

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,084
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New England
    I don't have an issue with guns. Personally if it's not the kind of gun you would use to hunt a deer to bring home you shouldn't have any business owning it but from a realistic standpoint guns are like drugs or prostitution. You can do whatever you want to try and regulate them but if someone really wants one bad enough, they're gonna find a way to get their hands on it
     
  11. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    To be honest, any attempt to interpret the Second Amendment as only applying to the circumstances of the 18th century is feeble and semantic. It may no longer be socially useful, but legally it's doubtful that one could seriously make that argument. It so happens that the evolving interpretation of the Constitution has protected guns in their current form. And that's perfectly valid, at least in a legal sense. Those who oppose the Second Amendment can't ignore that rich development of how it has been interpreted.

    Better, I think, to challenge the Second Amendment directly. Acknowledge that it is the legal basis for much of the problem. Ask if its impact can be ameliorated by statute and certainly try to lessen the worst effects of guns. The Second Amendment can be the elephant in the room and it's certainly a problem for reformers. There's only so much to reduce the prevalence of gun violence and suicides within the scope of the Second Amendment, which I think is enough to justify serious debate as to its continuing social utility and whether or not it should be repealed.

    And I'm not blind to the gargantuan effort that would require. But I think it's an effort well worth it, given how many people die every year from gun-related incidents.