Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

upant

Guest
or will they be satisfied with a ban on some guns?
would an appeal succeed?
would you cooperate?
on which side?

they have been trying for a long time. is the time right?
.

.
.http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/molon-labe/
“No one is talking about taking away your guns,” say those who claim “all” they want is “commonsense gun safety laws.” Someone forgot to tell them that some publications have opinion pieces belying that.
Click to expand...
www.ammoland.com

Mask is Coming Off ‘Commonsense Gun Safety Law’ Disclaimers

Plenty more examples exist to refute the reassurances that no wider disarmament goals exist.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
Charles Krauthammer (columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996 (boldface added).
Click to expand...
http://gunscholar.com/gunban.htm
 
What it is long past time for is to put the lives of our students and teachers ahead of some words written about guns in the 1700s when the weaponry available was vastly different and when the times were vastly different. And to apply those words to these times to include all of the weaponry available today and to purchasing multiple weapons in short period of times and without longer waiting periods and further requirements before purchasing. If people have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t object to some further restrictions and checks and evaluations. We are talking about people’s lives here. That should be more important than one’s love affair with weapons and their desire to have a shiny new semi automatic at a moments whim. There are so many common sense things that could be done without denying people the right to a gun for hunting or even to protect their property. The idea though that a citizen militia today could rise up against a government loaded with tanks and bombs and nuclear and all the other firepower at a government’s disposal in the 21st century doesn’t make much sense to me. Unless God forbid people start stockpiling such weaponry as well.
 
Last edited:
Good read on how good the 2nd amendment is:

://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/what-the-second-amendment-means-today/
 
Last edited:
We are to repeal the second amendment because some schools don’t want to bother protecting their students? One remembers that the most deadly school shooting of the last two decades occurred in Germany, where gun laws are extremely strict and there’s no second amendment.

There’s more security in every bar in the country than school districts provide for the students.
 
REgular troops are famously reluctant to fire on civilians. There were even instances in the Soviet Union where they refused to fire on civilians in uprisings. Special NKVD “killer squads” had to be used for that. To my knowledge, the U.S. doesn’t have any of those.

And what if there had been ten Tsarnaevs instead of two? They ran loose in the streets for quite awhile and people were told to stay indoors and lock themselves in, and so on. Not all organized assaults come from government. Just because most of us don’t live in the Fergusons of the country, it doesn’t mean there is no possibility of having to defend oneself against gang assault.

And while the weapons of 1776 were much slower to fire, they were more accurate than an AR-15 is today. And there actually were some semi-automatics then.
 
Sy_Noe said:
The idea though that a citizen militia today could rise up against a government loaded with tanks and bombs and nuclear and all the other firepower at a government’s disposal in the 21st century doesn’t make much sense to me.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the government one may need to face off against could be local or state. Also, I honestly fear that an Australia style ban would trigger the “they’re coming for us” fear that an unknown number of people apparently have. It’d be Waco many times over
 
Last edited:
upant said:
or will they be satisfied with a ban on some guns?
would an appeal succeed?
would you cooperate?
on which side?

they have been trying for a long time. is the time right?
Click to expand...
I think the national consensus is rapidly moving towards a ban on military type assault rifles, but not a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has already ruled that laws banning particular firearms is constitutional.

Ultimately, that’s what I support.

Law abiding gun lovers may need to give up some of their weapons. That’s no big deal. Certainly nothing to get hysterical about unless you want to play right into Russian manipulation

www.wired.com

Pro-Gun Russian Bots Flood Twitter After Parkland Shooting

In the wake of Wednesday's Parkland, Florida, school shooting Russian bots have taken to Twitter to stoke the gun control debate.
www.wired.com www.wired.com
 
Last edited:
Ah! So you would make me give up by AR-15, but not my M-14, despite the fact that they are different only in appearance and weight?

Neither, of course, is an “assault rifle” or a “military type” rifle. AR-15s, however, somewhat resemble one.
 
The most stringent gun laws in America are in Chicago and California. Both of them also have some of the highest rates of gun violence. On the flip side, Mississippi is one of the easier states to get firearms and there is very low gun violence
 
Ridgerunner said:
Ah! So you would make me give up by AR-15, but not my M-14, despite the fact that they are different only in appearance and weight?

Neither, of course, is an “assault rifle” or a “military type” rifle. AR-15s, however, somewhat resemble one.
Click to expand...
How a rifle looks can matter as much as how it functions based on a valid legal principle called “frighting” that Justice Scalia supported. The purpose of the law would be to undermine the gun culture and “image” young men find so appealing that goes with it. Young men are highly visually motivated. So yes, the AR-15 can be banned, just because of the way it looks.

In the same vein, perhaps M-14 accessories should be required to be painted pink or some other lurid color animals can’t see. That way the gun will be inherently safer for hunting, while at the same time look kind of silly. If function is all that matters, then a responsible gun owner shouldn’t mind at all.
 
You are simply throwing out meaningless statistics to muddy the waters. The specific focus at the moment is to prevent ONE particular form of gun violence - the mass shooting of innocent people in public places by angry white men.

Let’s limit the discussion to that.
 
Last edited:
How about we get rid of gun free zones so that the “angry white men” don’t know if there are firearms there. Arm the teachers or hire well trained military veterans to protect the schools. Even if we outlaw guns, doesn’t mean it will be effective. There were numerous people killed recently in China by a man with a knife. By your logic of make it illegal to solve the issue, then drugs should not be a problem. Meth is illegal; therefore, no one has access
 
Uhhhmmm, . . . ok . . . wow.

Ok, gee, I thought the thread was about repealing the 2nd Amendment, and short of that an assault weapons ban (as you yourself raised in a prior post). Sorry.
[/quote]

Context matters & nothing in your post addressed the current context. Why don’t you look up some statistics on what works to prevent mass shootings. You do want to prevent mass shootings, don’t you?
 
Last edited:
Luke6_37 said:
The purpose of the law would be to undermine the gun culture and “image” young men find so appealing that goes with it. Young men are highly visually motivated. So yes, the AR-15 can be banned, just because of the way it looks.
Click to expand...
If you believe the appearance of an AR-15 is the cause of these shootings, then let’s see the scholarly evidence, not just your opinion about it.

And if M-14s don’t have that appeal, why make people color them an odd color? And just what colors do you think “animals can’t see”? Different animals are able/unable to see different colors. Possibly you don’t know that some womens’ hunting gear does have pink in it, but it’s not a matter of a single color. It’s the “pattern breaking” of multiple colors and patterns.

And M-14s look about the same as any 30-06 deer rifle. So are you going to want them oddly colored too?

Or is that just a reflection of your desire to impose something you think onerous on hunters, however pointless? Seems so.
 
Last edited:
I can see problems with almost all of these except “hardening” likely targets.

Even banning ownership or possession for people convicted of domestic violence is, in my opinion, too wide a loop because those are filed in nearly every divorce nowadays to get early advantage, and the judges enter them almost without fail because wrongfully entering them bears no reputation hazard while denying them might.

Why not harden soft targets and see how that works? And while we’re at it, why in the world do we give these killers their “moment of fame” by endlessly reporting it in the media. That’s what they want.
 
I understand, but truly, when every hillbilly bar in the country has better security than the local school, our thought processes are messed up, and we need to start considering the obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top