Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Given the options, I voted more gun control is needed. But this poll leaves out the option of supporting the 2nd amendment while still needing more gun control. When the 2nd amendment was written, the weaponry available today could not have even been imagined. We restrict the 1st amendment. We can’t falsely yell fire in a crowded theater creating an illegal riot. No one needs some of the deadly weaponry available today to hunt or to protect property. And forget about a militia defeating the US government unless individuals are going to avail themselves with tanks and nuclear weapons and all the weaponry the US military has at its disposal.
 
Last edited:
Rights evolve based on technology. Telephones did not exist yet the police need a warrant to tap your phone as per the 4th Amendment. The internet did not exist when the 1st Amendment was written but speech on the internet is protected.

There is a clear and obvious link between falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater and the ensuing panic. There is no such link between the mere possession of a weapon and an unjust killing.

Finally using a nuke to quell a domestic insurgency would be like amputating your entire arm because of an infection on your hand.
 
You can ban things from here to kingdom come, but unfortunately criminals, particularly those who, like this man and terrorist groups, have access to money, will continue to obtain just what they need to do their dirty work. You can also criminalize the possession of a modified weapon like the Las Vegas shooter reportedly had, but since he apparently gave absolutely no indication he had a modified weapon, had a mental problem, or had murderous tendencies until he just let loose one day, I doubt a law would have stopped him.

If we are going to talk about gun regulation in the USA, it should be aimed more at reducing the mundane gun violence in places like Chicago that results in deaths daily and over and over. The regulations in that case aren’t working very well and the death toll over time dwarfs the mass shooting incidents. Gun laws need to be enforced and that means a lot more stop and frisk and sending people to prison, both of which are controversial as most of the people affected will not be the lone wolf mass shooters and terrorists, but will be poor minority men.
 
Criminals will many times just find other ways to kill. The Las Vegas shooter actually seemed to have bigger plans, as law enforcement found bomb material in his possession. He could have killed many many more people if he had decided to go the bomb route. In Europe we see terrorist using bombs, cars, knives, and illegal guns from the black market to commit their horrendous crimes. If you take away guns, criminals will find other ways to kill, and it may even be more destructive.
 
Last edited:
starshiptrooper said:
Either way, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Click to expand...
A weapon is not exactly the cause I would think would be worth turning my country into a desolate war zone for but hey, that’s just me.

I still think it’s one of the weaker arguments that guns rights activist use.
 
You may change your mind if you have no freedom and are dying of starvation.

It’s happened before.
 
You are absolutely right that once guns are taken away, criminals just find other means. I have had people argue that forcing criminals to use a knife or bomb is preferable because fewer people are killed with those, than with an automatic weapon. I would point to Tim McVeigh who killed 168 people and injured 680 with a truck full of fertilizer.
 
Yup, and as already said, bombs can be easily made, and guns can easily be purchased off of the dark net and black market. It’s all just a click away!
 
The problem is people aren’t interested in solutions.

Most of the rhetoric is just a hit-job on Donald Trump and the NRA.

We go through this in America all the time. The same people who yammer on about gun control couldn’t care less about Baltimore, Chicago or Detriot as long as they keep voting the way they do.

Unlike your nicely written post, they don’t want to help. They just want to have the same failed, feel-good solutions or worse yet just want to use tragedy to tear down political opponents.
 
I find it funny how the left ignores it completely when there is an Islamic terrorist attack, but when it’s just some loony, they have to jump all over it, blaming guns and America.
 
Last edited:
It will be rocket launchers on choppers next

Funny thing, crims don’t get hold of machine guns and the like here
 
Last edited:
Just pointing out the blatant immorality of posting an image promoting the slaughter of your fellow human beings on a Catholic messageboard.
 
SuperLuigi said:
You may change your mind if you have no freedom and are dying of starvation.

It’s happened before.
Click to expand...
I just think the argument “We can’t ban assault rifles because we’ll need them to overthrow the government some day” doesn’t work. We’d need more than that. We’d need 50 cals and RPG’s and tanks and all kinds of other weaponry that currently aren’t available to civilians to even be able to mount a serious resistance. That’s just the reality of modern warfare.

But making it harder for for lunatics to get a hold of these weapons that can kill dozens in a matter of minutes seems like a reasonable goal. I don’t understand why we can’t work together to make that a reality, so tragedies like Vegas and Sandy Hook stop becoming common place here. No other first world country has a gun violence problem to the same extent that the United States does. That tells me we are doing something wrong.
 
Last edited:
Which countries? Surely they don’t have generic gun laws? There have been no auto weapon terrorist acts in Europe, like Vegas, I pray there never will be.

But the way I see it, You guys got a big problem now, How easy is it for this as a reoccurrence
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top