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

[Road-Worrier]

I think for a repeal of the 2nd amendment to be effective, you also need to repeal the 1st and 4th amendments. Looking at the example of the 18th amendment (Alcohol Prohibition), what prevented that amendment from being effective was a lack of enforcement and the ability of groups, largely supported by liquor interests, to advocate for repeal. In order for a 2nd amendment repeal to be effective, groups like the NRA, that advocate for gun rights, will have to be banned. Additionally, you will need to vastly expand the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) to conduct warrantless, and likely, “no knock” searches of the homes of suspected gun owners. You’ll also need to give the federal government the authority to force the states to enforce federal firearms laws, otherwise you have the potential for “sanctuary-type cities” for gun owners, something that clearly can’t be allowed. We’'ll also need to create some sort of agency to monitor Hollywood. Several shootings can be directly linked to the glamorizing of guns and violence in movies and TV. Columbine, for example, was influenced by “The Matrix”, and Aurora by “The Dark Knight” (the 2nd movie in Chris Nolan’s Batman trilogy). Movies and TV shows can no longer be allowed to show firearms in a positive light.

 

[ajg]

This will be my last comment. I do not think the two sides on this will every agree. Some make outlandish statements and claim “xyz” backs me without actually citing any sources. Others are posting legit sources so the other side ignores it completely until called out and makes another outlandish claim.

Personally, I am a firm believer in the second amendment and have a license to carry. Most of my friends carry as well. I have been around guns my whole life and not once has a gun harmed me. It’s time to blame the people, not the tool.

 

[MidwestGuy]

The color idea really seems to bother you, even though it is really no big deal at all.

So you want every law abiding gun owner to paint the guns they currently own? Do you really consider that reasonable, or even have a chance at becoming law?

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

The color idea really seems to bother you, even though it is really no big deal at all.

So you want every law abiding gun owner to paint the guns they currently own? Do you really consider that reasonable, or even have a chance at becoming law?

I think it is a good idea that would work. Whether it would become law is another matter.

If it did become law, I would hope that decent law-abiding gun owners who care about the undermining the gun-culture-of-death would do so willingly. It would cause no harm to how the gun functioned and it would make it safer in the field. It wouldn’t be as bright as blaze orange, but it would stick out better than black.

 

[MidwestGuy]

I think it is a good idea that would work. Whether it would become law is another matter.

If it did become law, I would hope that decent law-abiding gun owners who care about the undermining the gun-culture-of-death would do so willingly. It would cause no harm to how the gun functioned and it would make it safer in the field. It wouldn’t be as bright as blaze orange, but it would stick out better than black.

So if a gun owner disagrees with what you think is a good idea, then they must not care about undermining the gun culture of death, as you put it?

 

[Theo520]

a pink gun would stick-out in a crowded environment. whereas a camo gun would blend in more. it is all about planning to maximize the time available for the task.

Got any examples where this was relevant? People are pretty quick at picking out a displayed gun in a crowded environment.

Anyway, a criminal would just leave the black or pink gun in a duffle bag until ‘he’ decided to use it. I think several of the school shooters brought their guns into the school in such a concealed manner.

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

I think it is a good idea that would work. Whether it would become law is another matter.

If it did become law, I would hope that decent law-abiding gun owners who care about the undermining the gun-culture-of-death would do so willingly. It would cause no harm to how the gun functioned and it would make it safer in the field. It wouldn’t be as bright as blaze orange, but it would stick out better than black.

So if a gun owner disagrees with what you think is a good idea, then they must not care about undermining the gun culture of death, as you put it?

It is a good idea. Proof is that you have no real argument against it.

Just like blaze orange makes a hunter safer in the field, it will make guns safer in the field.

It doesn’t affect the operation of the gun, it doesn’t infringe on your rights - all that it affects are the aesthetics that allow guns to impart a false image of power and masculinity to those who “love” them.

So yeah, if you can’t deal with that, then you really don’t care about undermining the gun culture of death.

 

[upant]

Got any examples where this was relevant?

this was in response to luke6 on why someone would paint a pink gun. once out of the bag and he started using it a pink gun would seem to standout better than one that was camo. the cops should spot the perp sooner.

 

[Theo520]

this was in response to luke6 on why someone would paint a pink gun. once out of the bag and he started using it a pink gun would seem to standout better than one that was camo. the cops should spot the perp sooner.

I think the noise of the gun make the color a mute issue, once they start using it.

If it did matter, a person intent on harm would spray paint the weapon just before putting it into the bag, which is just before they committed multiple life term felonies. Changing the color doesn’t help us prevent people intent on evil.

 

[MidwestGuy]

It is a good idea. Proof is that you have no real argument against it.

Just like blaze orange makes a hunter safer in the field, it will make guns safer in the field.

It doesn’t affect the operation of the gun, it doesn’t infringe on your rights - all that it affects are the aesthetics that allow guns to impart a false image of power and masculinity to those who “love” them.

So yeah, if you can’t deal with that, then you really don’t care about undermining the gun culture of death.

It is only proof of your very biased opinion and nothing else. You think it’s a good idea and I don’t. Why should law abiding citizens have to pay to paint their guns?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The color idea really seems to bother you, even though it is really no big deal at all.

No. It’s just stupid. First of all, you don’t know what colors animals can see. They’re not all the same. Second, solid colors aren’t good for hunting, and certainly not bright ones. And pink isn’t likely to dissuade anyone of anything. “Hunter orange” is the same color jailbirds wear, but it’s broken up in patterns most of the time because many animals are more attentive to patterns than to colors. And nobody refuses to wear orange just because jailbirds do.

And you have provided no reason at all for anyone to think coloring AR-15s pink would stop a single shooting. You haven’t even proved there is such a thing as a “gun culture” that leads young men to think anything at all about guns. And you most assuredly have not demonstrated that shooters kill out of machismo or a belief that the guns they hold are “cool”. They shoot in order to kill. They do not kill in order to have an occasion to shoot.

 

[Theo520]

There is no allergic reaction to pink. If macho items start going pink, then pink becomes a macho color.

No hunter or road worker is bothered by wearing fluorescent orange, nobody has stopped hunting because they were too embarrassed by wearing the color.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe you could get some university psychologist interested in painting a bunch of guns pink and attaching electrodes or something to the heads of a bunch of young men and see if the sight or lifting of a black or pink gun does anything to their brain waves. Then you might have something. Otherwise, this is just silliness.

But again, it seems to me much more likely that shooters shoot in order to kill people. They don’t kill people in order to be able to shoot a nifty-looking gun.

 

[Theo520]

They don’t kill people in order to be able to shoot a nifty-looking gun.

Yea, gun ranges have shown to be a much better alternative. You can even go back many many times and experience the fun all over again. When you kill people, it’s normally a one and done. You are either dead or in jail for life after a mass shooting.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

There is no allergic reaction to pink. If macho items start going pink, then pink becomes a macho color.

True! Many Roman emperors wore purple and I doubt many would not consider purple a masculine color nowadays, despite its long history of being the preferred color of nobility. You can’t much more masculine than the Romans.

 

[Luke6_37]

There is no allergic reaction to pink. If macho items start going pink, then pink becomes a macho color.

True! Many Roman emperors wore purple and I doubt many would not consider purple a masculine color nowadays, despite its long history of being the preferred color of nobility. You can’t much more masculine than the Romans.

Tell that to the priest at my parish on Gaudete Sunday. He insists he’s wearing “salmon”.

Since we are all in agreement that pink is the BEST color for guns, I look forward to seeing how you all promote the idea among gun owners. Spread the gospel.

 

[JonNC]

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.

The words of a 1700’s document.
One needs to recognize that, for the left, none of the other rights are of any greater value than the one protected by the 2nd. The first , 4th and 5th are equally discardable (and currently under attack an the 9th and 10th they have already neutralized), if they in any way infringe on government power.

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

And yet this is their big argument. It must be something progressives truly fear( that the people would dare stand against tyranny.
How dare they!

 

[Lev]

And yet this is their big argument. It must be something progressives truly fear( that the people would dare stand against tyranny.

How dare they!

The Oregon militia demonstrated how truly ineffective the idea of a civilian militia is against government.

 

[JonNC]

When you kill people, it’s normally a one and done.

Unless, or course, you run a progressive regime, where you’ve successfully disarmed to populace.

 

[JonNC]

The Oregon militia demonstrated how truly ineffective the idea of a civilian militia is against government.

Got it. “Come on, guys. You can’t win against tyranny. Just give up your rights. Government will take care of you.”