Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Shadow Wolf]

Our consumption of goods is not seen as especially evil

It wastes resources, it pollutes massively, it destroys the planet, and it has just one small part of the planet and the global population consuming way more than we give back and way more than what any other nation does.

It shows how much the world is relying upon is -

There are many, many companies that do not make anything in America. Technology is leading the world, but yet America does not produce anything manufactured by the top electronics companies. We all need cell phones, but you go into a cell phone store you won't find American made cell phones. We are not depended on nearly as much as you think.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You can't remove the right to gun ownership without making a situation where the government could establish a police state through force.

You can still have guns and still have your state fall into tyranny.

Why, just imagine if the 2nd Marines tried to force their will on Kentucky today.

It would be a bloody massacre. Those "rednecks with hunting rifles" wouldn't stand a chance - not in arms, not in armor, not in numbers, not in strategy, not in technology - it would literally be a bloody massacre.

 

[Wirey]

You can still have guns and still have your state fall into tyranny.

It would be a bloody massacre. Those "rednecks with hunting rifles" wouldn't stand a chance - not in arms, not in armor, not in numbers, not in strategy, not in technology - it would literally be a bloody massacre.

Uh, that was my point. Turn on your Sarcasm Detector, willya?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't find the number of deaths by gun as a compelling argument. There are nearly as many deaths by car, but nobody is proposing to outlaw automobiles.

When it comes to automobiles:

- you need a licence for both the user and the auto.
- the government imposes strict and ever-changing safety rules on manufacturers.
- the police literally hide in bushes to watch people using their autos, jumping out and ticketing people they catch breaking the rules.
- an army of professionals is working diligently to find ways to reduce auto deaths and injuries.

Applying that model to guns would be a step forward, IMO.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It wastes resources, it pollutes massively, it destroys the planet, and it has just one small part of the planet and the global population consuming way more than we give back and way more than what any other nation does.

Yes, but you have gone away from the topic. I was not arguing that it was good.

It would be a bloody massacre. Those "rednecks with hunting rifles" wouldn't stand a chance - not in arms, not in armor, not in numbers, not in strategy, not in technology - it would literally be a bloody massacre.

Kentuckans would kick butt! They have a secret, underground basement with a Wii U.

 

[Aquitaine]

Why not?

It's lies at the heart of US constitutionalism, second only to the First Amendment, though that is up for debate.

If you repeal the 2nd Amendment, you take away a fundamental part of US culture and way of life.

 

[Draka]

It's lies at the heart of US constitutionalism, second only to the First Amendment, though that is up for debate.

If you repeal the 2nd Amendment, you take away a fundamental part of US culture and way of life.

So? As society progresses and grows and changes it sometimes needs to let go of the rules of the past and create rules more relevant to today. We've updated our laws on numerous occasions. From women having the right to vote, to ending segregation, to same sex marriage, we change our laws to reflect the current times. Just because something is old, or traditional, or in some established document or book it doesn't mean it is right for today.

 

[Aquitaine]

So? As society progresses and grows and changes it sometimes needs to let go of the rules of the past and create rules more relevant to today. We've updated our laws on numerous occasions. From women having the right to vote, to ending segregation, to same sex marriage, we change our laws to reflect the current times. Just because something is old, or traditional, or in some established document or book it doesn't mean it is right for today.

Perhaps I should've clarified, what I was getting at was "Americans will never let it happen", I wasn't giving my opinion on the Amendment.
The only way I see it happening would be if the US were to be split in two: one a Liberal "blue" US, the other a Conservative "red" one; I think we know which one of the two would repeal its 2nd Amendment.

 

[metis]

I don't think it necessary to repeal the 2nd, but I certainly do not believe that having AR-15's and AK-47's and the proliferation of handguns is what our founding fathers (and mothers) had in mind.

 

[Revoltingest]

And if the people who like firearms only ever shot other people who like firearms, then that would work just fine.

What about shooting people who like to attack one with other weapons?
On 2nd thought.....never mind.....this isn't going anywhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about shooting people who like to attack one with other weapons?
On 2nd thought.....never mind.....this isn't going anywhere.

My point was that guns create risks for people who haven't freely chosen to accept those risks.

Guns are one of those "your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose" issues: to the extent that gun users create risks for others, those others should be able to impose restrictions on gun users to mitigate those risks.

 

[Revoltingest]

My point was that guns create risks for people who haven't freely chosen to accept those risks.

Guns are one of those "your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose" issues: to the extent that gun users create risks for others, those others should be able to impose restrictions on gun users to mitigate those risks.

As long as regulation is useful & legal, I'm OK with it.
But this thread is about completely eliminating the right.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And who do you think will win in that battle--you or the US government? (See Waco and the Branch Dravidians for a good example of citizens battling the government.)

And you want to be even more defenseless...

 

[Curious George]

My point was that guns create risks for people who haven't freely chosen to accept those risks.

Guns are one of those "your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose" issues: to the extent that gun users create risks for others, those others should be able to impose restrictions on gun users to mitigate those risks.

And they surely can, we just look very closely at the attempts and regulations.

 

[McBell]

When it comes to automobiles:

- you need a licence for both the user and the auto.
- the government imposes strict and ever-changing safety rules on manufacturers.
- the police literally hide in bushes to watch people using their autos, jumping out and ticketing people they catch breaking the rules.
- an army of professionals is working diligently to find ways to reduce auto deaths and injuries.

Applying that model to guns would be a step forward, IMO.

I agree.
Unfortunately, all the government wants to do is impose a bunch of worthless bans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As long as regulation is useful & legal, I'm OK with it.
But this thread is about completely eliminating the right.

Is it? Or is it about removing a roadblock to sensible regulation?

Repealing the Second Amendment wouldn't automatically make any weapon illegal. You'd need other laws for that. The answers to the questions "should the Second Amendment be repealed?" and "should law 'X' (which would be incompatible with the Second Amendment) be implemented?" aren't necessarily tied together.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it? Or is it about removing a roadblock to sensible regulation?

It doesn't prohibit regulation.
But no other amendment guarantees the right to own guns.
So repealing the amendment repeals the right.
It then becomes a revokable privilege..

Repealing the Second Amendment wouldn't automatically make any weapon illegal. You'd need other laws for that. The answers to the questions "should the Second Amendment be repealed?" and "should law 'X' (which would be incompatible with the Second Amendment) be implemented?" aren't necessarily tied together.

I didn't say that repeal makes anything illegal.
It just eliminates the constitutional right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't prohibit regulation.
But no other amendment guarantees the right to own guns.
So repealing the amendment repeals the right.
It then becomes a revokable privilege.

Um... constitutional amendments are revokable... or at least able to be nullified with subsequent amendments. Good thing, too - otherwise it'd be illegal to drink in your country.

 

[Revoltingest]

Um... constitutional amendments are revokable... or at least able to be nullified with subsequent amendments. Good thing, too - otherwise it'd be illegal to drink in your country.

Of course any amendment can be repealed by subsequent amendment.
But once an amendment granting a right is repealed, states & the fed may infringe with wild abandon.
I don't trust them with granting them such vastly increased authority over us.
But then I can understand why you're OK with it.....it wouldn't affect you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But then I can understand why you're OK with it.....it wouldn't affect you.

On the contrary - depending on what laws are enacted with the amendment repealed, it could reduce my risk of getting shot when I'm in the US. It could also reduce the number of guns that are smuggled from your country to mine for criminals.