I am 1,000% in favor of some type of limiting of the scope of the 2nd amendment. I will cosign @javalover as she was much more eloquent then I could be.
I think my issue with the 2nd amendment (and, I mean, I am not American, so there's that), is that is implies that owning a gun is a RIGHT. I don't believe that owning a gun should be a RIGHT for anybody. I think it can be a requirement of someone's job (police, military, etc), but I don't think it is a RIGHT.
That being said, I also believe that access to affordable health care (and by affordable, I really just mean free, lol), is a RIGHT. lol. Again, Canadian. I will see myself out now.
I would support stipulations, addendums, allowing for modifications in how individuals are able to legally obtain guns. There should definitely be waiting periods and a very thorough vetting process.
With such a strong military and a government that is not necessarily working in the best interests of the proletariat, I think a de-gunning of the populous would be a bad idea. Also, prohibitions do not work. And the pro-gun individuals opinions/interests should be incorporated in any legislation.
I think mental health is a key issue. Ferreting out individuals whose psychopathy is such that they will kill is important.
If I gave a gun to you, you are not going to plan to execute people in a mass shooting. The individuals committing these crimes need to be the focus. Although, I heard Obama saying that preventing mass shootings is very difficult, I am somewhat skeptical of that opinion. Why have there been no mass shootings since 1996 in Australia?
Again, I would stress that propaganda to the populous is important. If someone stabs a number of individuals, people aren't running out and buying knives; there aren't surges in knife sales. If someone bombs a number of individuals, people aren't stocking up on bomb-making supplies. Why do people think owning and carrying a gun will make them safer? Especially, if someone violent is carrying and using a gun like the AR-15?
I would support stipulations, addendums, allowing for modifications in how individuals are able to legally obtain guns. There should definitely be waiting periods and a very thorough vetting process.
With such a strong military and a government that is not necessarily working in the best interests of the proletariat, I think a de-gunning of the populous would be a bad idea. Also, prohibitions do not work. And the pro-gun individuals opinions/interests should be incorporated in any legislation.
I think mental health is a key issue. Ferreting out individuals whose psychopathy is such that they will kill is important.
If I gave a gun to you, you are not going to plan to execute people in a mass shooting. The individuals committing these crimes need to be the focus. Although, I heard Obama saying that preventing mass shootings is very difficult, I am somewhat skeptical of that opinion. Why have there been no mass shootings since 1996 in Australia?
Again, I would stress that propaganda to the populous is important. If someone stabs a number of individuals, people aren't running out and buying knives; there aren't surges in knife sales. If someone bombs a number of individuals, people aren't stocking up on bomb-making supplies. Why do people think owning and carrying a gun will make them safer? Especially, if someone violent is carrying and using a gun like the AR-15?
because they enacted strict gun control laws. You know, the thing you think won't work?
You know, Toledo. I am not here to have a fight or any contention. Your tone can be respectful.
I don't care about the term used to describe the type of gun being used, or that some people who hunt with a semi automatic weapon are offended by the public calling for a ban on them for everyone. Joe Schmo doesn't need one, and neither does a hunter.
Ok. You are anti gun. And you need to admit that its you who doesnt want to have a conversation.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes, I am anti gun. That's obvious, no?
But I get that owning a gun is right granted by the laws of this country. I can respect that right to some extent. I personally think the type of gun ( or ammo or magazine or attachments) that a civilian, or person not in active duty, owns should be restricted.
What am I not admitting and how am I not having this conversation? The same conversation that happens over and over.
Use the weapons that were around when the amendment was written and keep semi automatic weapons out of the hands of the general public.
I've said this too! Muzzle loaders for everyone! There is no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the development of hand held killing machines.
Use the weapons that were around when the amendment was written and keep semi automatic weapons out of the hands of the general public.
I've said this too! Muzzle loaders for everyone! There is no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the development of hand held killing machines.
It's slightly tongue in cheek. Founding fathers could not have anticipated cars or the internet or airplanes either, yet here they are with *gasp* new regulations and laws.
I would support stipulations, addendums, allowing for modifications in how individuals are able to legally obtain guns. There should definitely be waiting periods and a very thorough vetting process.
With such a strong military and a government that is not necessarily working in the best interests of the proletariat, I think a de-gunning of the populous would be a bad idea. Also, prohibitions do not work. And the pro-gun individuals opinions/interests should be incorporated in any legislation.
I think mental health is a key issue. Ferreting out individuals whose psychopathy is such that they will kill is important.
If I gave a gun to you, you are not going to plan to execute people in a mass shooting. The individuals committing these crimes need to be the focus. Although, I heard Obama saying that preventing mass shootings is very difficult, I am somewhat skeptical of that opinion. Why have there been no mass shootings since 1996 in Australia?
Again, I would stress that propaganda to the populous is important. If someone stabs a number of individuals, people aren't running out and buying knives; there aren't surges in knife sales. If someone bombs a number of individuals, people aren't stocking up on bomb-making supplies. Why do people think owning and carrying a gun will make them safer? Especially, if someone violent is carrying and using a gun like the AR-15?
With such a strong military, it is highly unlikely that the "populous" would be able to overthrow the government with a home stockpile of weapons.
This is...such a naïve and simplified statement I don't even know where to start. But how would we go about doing this? About "ferreting out" these individuals? If they even have a common thread, which I'm not sure they do.
Post by juliachild on Jun 15, 2016 10:11:08 GMT -5
I never understand the overthrowing the US military argument. People must have little understanding of what they would be dealing with there. Even if everyone owned and AR-15, there is no way citizens could overthrow the government.
I never understand the overthrowing the US military argument. People must have little understanding of what they would be dealing with there. Even if everyone owned and AR-15, there is no way citizens could overthrow the government.
I would support it actually being applied as written. Well regulated militias only.
So the state militias. The National Guard.
There is no reason to believe that's what they meant. The 2nd amendment is the only amendment that ordinarily rational people think should be construed narrowly, and to me, that is really intellectually dishonest. The amendment says "shall not be infringed." It doesn't matter what reasoning they gave, when they articulated the right it was absolute. The fact that most sane people disagree with whether it should be a right doesn't mean that it isn't one.
So yes, I would absolutely support an amendment repealing the 2nd entirely. But until it passes, I remain firmly opposed to limiting the right. You can't pick and choose amendments. When that happens, it sets precedent for some very precious amendments- like the 1st, 4th and 5th- to be interpreted narrowly when politically expedient.
Post by revolution on Jun 15, 2016 12:53:38 GMT -5
I fully support some change to the 2nd amendment. Please make it happen.
I was surprised and not surprised recently to find out I lived in one of the top 20 counties in the ENTIRE USA with the most households with firearms in their homes. THIS IS NOT NECESSARY HERE. I know this is a HUGE hunting area. Schools are closed for the first day of deer season (for rifles) BUT COME ON. I see the people that live in the county and there is no way they care enough to have gun safety high on their priority list. And, to be blunt, I'm not sure the mental capacity of most of the owners is good enough for me to be comfortable living near so many people with guns. I just don't see the need for all of these guns around here. I really don't. It scares the living shit out of me, and I was brought up with guns. And I took gun safety classes. And I used to own my own shotgun and go hunting. And I don't like it at all.
I always find the response to this about needing the right to defend their home when most of the time they have only shot their gun at a shooting range. They have no training on how to react and react well in an intense situation. There is a reason that law enforcement and military are trained for this over and over. I don't trust that average person to react accurately or properly. I don't think you should ever be able to purchase a military grade weapon.