http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/i...oes-the-first-only-apply-to-printing-presses/ If the Second Amendment Only Applies to Muskets, Does the First Only Apply to Printing Presses? I know that this is a biased article, but it really does make you think about how some people think of the Second Amendment and all of our other rights in the Bill of Rights. What do you guys think?
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."
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.
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.
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?
If it were up to me, they'd be banned completely, but such a measure would no doubt provoke a civil war.
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).
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.
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
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.