Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because all the majority of mass shootings in the US are perpetrated by white men, usually with a history of domestic violence (making the Las Vegas shooter unusual), and not Islamic terrorists. Because school children, people attending church or a concert are being killed by domestic terrorists.
 
France, Paris attacks, November 13th 2015, 137 dead, 413 injured.
 
Last edited:
The majority of terrorist attacks worldwide are Islamic. Mass shootings only make up a small number of gun violence in the U.S alone. Most homicides with guns in the U.S are related to gang violence, mostly (and I don’t want to get into a race issue here) committed by young men of African descent.
 
Last edited:
RobynP said:
Sorry, but the idea that an M16 is going to stop the full might of the US military has always seemed like a pipe dream to me.

If the government really wanted to take your guns, your assault rifle would not even slow them down.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but no.

If the US Gov’t really did become unhinged and actually decided to fire on its own people, most of the US Military would desert. In those circumstances SEVERAL MILLION armed Americans against the small remainder would be very interesting.

Look at Spain right now. Let’s see how they end-up treating Catalonia. Probably a lot different than they would if individual Catalans were heavily armed.
 
I have no problem listening to new ideas, but gun control is an old, failed idea. And basic rights are not up for compromise.

In the USA, most of the military supports the #2A, so it’s a moot point. The whole idea behind the #2A is to act as a deterrant. It’s not a permission slip to be macho with a gun—that’s actually #1A, and only if you don’t hurt others.

Also, you really need to stop comparing us to other countries. That’s what far-left propagandists AND the Russian media does in order to get us to compromise our freedoms and promote their agenda. Most of the comparisons are flawed any ways and are based on metrics designed to fool the low-information citizen and the person who watches their 5 PM News and believes it.

Other countries in the First World are homogenous and long story short have very strict cultural controls. It is the culture, NOT the government, that keeps the society in line.

Otherwise, some values are different Japan, for instance, will actually wiretap suspected extremist groups in the broadest sense with VERY wide latitude that would NEVER stand up to American court precedent.

What would people say if Donald Trump was found wiretapping every mosque or animal rights meeting in the country? It would violate their Constitutional rights. But other countries don’t have these.

When there is a mass shooting where there is gun control, the results are the same as we saw with Andres Brevik or the truck terror attacks in Europe.

But even so, the changing demographics of we call the First World are challenging some of that because there are breaks in the homogenous cultural fabric.
 
Last edited:
Absolute hogwash.

Need I remind you of Orlando? San Bernandino? Fort Hood?
 
Very true.

Also, just because he did not have a legal history of domestic violence doesn’t mean that he did not have a history of abuse.
 
Last edited:
And wouldn’t it be better to make it more difficult for them to have guns. I really don’t see a lot of conceal/carry people coming to the rescue. The crowd at the concert in LV is a good example. A lot of the crew had guns but that didn’t save anyone.
 
SuperLuigi said:
But even so, the changing demographics of we call the First World are challenging some of that because there are breaks in the homogenous cultural fabric.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don’t want to wish bad things on other countries, but for everyone saying “funny how it doesn’t happen in my country”, give it time and it probably will. It’s already happening in places like France.
 
Most of these guns are obtained illegally. You don’t really think someone with gang history could easily be able to purchase a gun right? Rather than taking guns away, we should lend more support to law enforcement and do more to crackdown on gang violence.
 
Duesenberg said:
Sorry, but no.

If the US Gov’t really did become unhinged and actually decided to fire on its own people, most of the US Military would desert. In those circumstances SEVERAL MILLION armed Americans against the small remainder would be very interesting.
Click to expand...
That still doesn’t change the fact that banning or putting regulations on the sale of firearms will have no effect on whether we can defend ourselves from a tyrannic government or not. If the military itself revolts, then we have a different story. They will have supplies none of us have that would make the fight even. But our freedom is not dependent on Joe Blow’s ability to buy a rifle at Wal-Mart, as much as Joe Blow might want to believe that.
Duesenberg said:
Look at Spain right now. Let’s see how they end-up treating Catalonia. Probably a lot different than they would if individual Catalans were heavily armed.
Click to expand...
The key word there is “heavily.” You’d need to be heavily armed to actually be able to mount a resistance against a highly trained army. But I would hope everybody here agrees that the idea of giving civilians easy access to machine guns and rocket launchers is ludicrous.

That’s all I’m saying. If the reason for opposing any and all regulation on firearms is to protect us from some possible dictatorship, then logically we shouldn’t oppose banning machine guns and other extreme heavy weapons for civilian use. But most people do. Why? Because they recognize that the potential for catastrophic damage that making such weapons easily available would lead to far outweighs whatever potential there is for a dictatorship. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask whether that is also the case with other firearms. Does the negative outweigh the potential good?

Guns rights activists can argue against regulation on other grounds if they wish. But the argument that we ‘‘need’’ guns to protect us from tyranny just leads to absurdity. Which is why I said it’s the weakest argument against gun control.
 
RobynP said:
That’s all I’m saying. If the reason for opposing any and all regulation on firearms is to protect us from some possible dictatorship, then logically we shouldn’t oppose banning machine guns and other extreme heavy weapons for civilian use. But most people do. Why? Because they recognize that the potential for catastrophic damage that making such weapons easily available would lead to far outweighs whatever potential there is for a dictatorship. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask whether that is also the case with other firearms. Does the negative outweigh the potential good?
Click to expand...
This is a strawman argument.

First, there’s enough confidence in the American military and the police force to prevent the need for ordinary Americans to have to have such things.

Second, there isn’t much demand at all for these items because again it is the CULTURE not the government that determines society’s quality. Right now people are able to defend their homes and property with firearms and are content to do so.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Yeah, I don’t want to wish bad things on other countries, but for everyone saying “funny how it doesn’t happen in my country”, give it time and it probably will. It’s already happening in places like France.
Click to expand...
Like the Bataclan Theatre in Paris, where 89 people were shot dead in 2015.
Last year, a terrorist with a history of drug abuse killed 86 people and injuring another 458 with a truck on the French Riviera. Trucks are ubiquitous and so I’m unconvinced gun control will do much but I’m open to changing my position though.
 
Last edited:
SuperLuigi said:
I have no problem listening to new ideas, but gun control is an old, failed idea. And basic rights are not up for compromise.

In the USA, most of the military supports the #2A, so it’s a moot point. The whole idea behind the #2A is to act as a deterrant. It’s not a permission slip to be macho with a gun—that’s actually #1A, and only if you don’t hurt others.
Click to expand...
I disagree that gun control has failed. It’s never been properly implemented here.

FTR I support the second amendment. What I don’t support is the idea that the second amendment means no regulation. I want it to be damn near impossible for someone to get a hold of ten rifles and kill five dozen people. I think we can work towards making that a reality. But only if people on both sides would stop clinging to shibboleths and accept a compromise.
 
What if they said being Catholic was a mental illness and everyone else got a gun. And if you didn’t officiate a gay wedding, they’d show up with their guns.

Average police response time = 30 minutes.

Want to see things like that happen?
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Wise words.

We stopped having gun massacres here after Port Arthur. Gun laws were changed. We still have issues. But knives and single shots can’t do 59 dead and 527 injured
Click to expand...
you had 14 mass killings in the 20 years prior to the confiscation and you have had 14 mass killings since. the number didn’t change only the weapon.

your buyback worked so well, your country will have another to get rid of the illegal guns brought into the country by gangs.

your gang violence is growing and so is your gun violence.
 
Bruised_Reed said:
And wouldn’t it be better to make it more difficult for them to have guns. I really don’t see a lot of conceal/carry people coming to the rescue. The crowd at the concert in LV is a good example. A lot of the crew had guns but that didn’t save anyone.
Click to expand...
a little ridiculous to think a handgun would be accurate at that range and shooting into a building.
 
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top