Pastor buys AR-15 at raffle so he could destroy it

[zz912]

The second amendment, on the other hand, was written a long time ago. It made sense that people would have been armed. Nowadays, since you aren’t all about to join the Militia any time ever, you should consider another amendment that brings it more in line with modern times.

Go ahead and propose an amendment to modify/amend/repeal the 2nd amendment then.

 

[ucfengr]

The second amendment, on the other hand, was written a long time ago. It made sense that people would have been armed. Nowadays, since you aren’t all about to join the Militia any time ever, you should consider another amendment that brings it more in line with modern times.

There’s a procedure for amending the Constitution. It involves approval by 3/4s of the House and Senate, and 3/5s of state legislatures.

The The problem with the argument of self defence is that you can compare the USA to other countries and see that the lax gun laws lead to far more deaths than other Western countries. Criminals in other Western countries still manage to get their hands on guns (but it is much harder) and death rates are still lower even though the innocent people can’t defend themselves. So America as a whole would be better served by stricter gun laws. For example, we all have to go through security checks at airports. You could argue that it isn’t fair for innocent people to have to go through that hassle. But it benefits society as a whole.

The problem with this argument is that the vast majority of gun murders in the US occur in places where gun control is the strictest and, for the most part, it consists of criminals killing other criminals, and sadly, some bystanders. The problem of course is, criminals don’t care about gun laws, just like they don’t care about other laws, so they’re unlikely to worry too much about additional gun control. I remember reading an article not too long ago about Germany, which has very strict gun laws, having millions of unregistered firearms in circulation.

The Another example is suicide. If guns were less common, there would be less deaths by suicide. Often, the decision to actually go through with committing suicide is made suddenly. There is no coming back from a headshot. You might have a chance at being saved if you take pills and then second guess yourself or someone finds you.

Japan has among the strictest gun control laws in the world, but their suicide rate is nearly twice that of the US.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

There’s a procedure for amending the Constitution. It involves approval by 3/4s of the House and Senate, and 3/5s of state legislatures.

The problem with this argument is that the vast majority of gun murders in the US occur in places where gun control is the strictest and, for the most part, it consists of criminals killing other criminals, and sadly, some bystanders. The problem of course is, criminals don’t care about gun laws, just like they don’t care about other laws, so they’re unlikely to worry too much about additional gun control. I remember reading an article not too long ago about Germany, which has very strict gun laws, having millions of unregistered firearms in circulation.

Japan has among the strictest gun control laws in the world, but their suicide rate is nearly twice that of the US.

I take your points. I understand the problem with amending the constitution, I’m just saying that it should be acknowledged that it probably ought to be changed given the changes in society that have occurred in the last 200 years.

However Japan has a very different culture to the USA - there is serious pressure to succeed and work extremely hard at advancing your career, so it isn’t exactly a fair comparison.

Gun control will obviously not work if criminals can drive across to the next state to easily buy guns; it needs to be a national initiative. But chances are, a bystander at a shootout who happened to be carrying and tried to intervene would probably just get themselves killed rather than save anyone else.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Go ahead and propose an amendment to modify/amend/repeal the 2nd amendment then.

I mean, I understand the political issues around it, but leaving those aside, I don’t think the right to bear arms should be in a country’s constitution in this day and age. It serves the purposes of criminals more than law-abiding citizens.

 

[Michael68]

I mean, I understand the political issues around it, but leaving those aside, I don’t think the right to bear arms should be in a country’s constitution in this day and age. It serves the purposes of criminals more than law-abiding citizens.

In this case only the criminals would have guns.

 

[Paganus]

Was the crime “not knowing the reality of the world they created” or was it illegally transferring a firearm? .

Pastors who violate firearms laws are very dangerous. I remember how the Attorney General responded when a pastor was suspected of doing that down in Waco, Tx.

 

[ARSpade]

Was the crime “not knowing the reality of the world they created” or was it illegally transferring a firearm? You are looking for vengeance because this man disagrees with a political opinion that you hold dear. You don’t even agree with the law but you want this man to be charged with breaking it as a punishment for being in favor of gun control. That is not how criminal justice works. If you really disagreed with this law you wouldn’t want him charged with it and would use it as an example as to why the law is ridiculous.

So you’re saying that if you support a law then you can break it at will because reasons.

 

[Brendan]

Gun control will obviously not work if criminals can drive across to the next state to easily buy guns; it needs to be a national initiative.

How about if they just made the guns. How would gun control prohibit that. It’s not exactly rocket science. A revolver is close to 200 year old technology. The materials (steel) can be obtained at any junkyard, and the tools at any good hardware store.

Back in WW-II, the British developed the Sten submachine gun. It was specifically designed to be manufactured in garage shops.

During post WW-II British occupied Palestine, the Zionist had a shop that was turning them out by the hundreds. The shop was located in the basement of a laundry that served British officers, the very men in charge of making sure that neither the Zionists nor the Arabs got ahold of arms. The sound of the washers and dryers doing the laundry of the British officers covered up the noise of the gun making operation in the basement below

HEre are the plans for the Sten in PDF form.
milsurps.com/content.php?r=422-Blueprints-for-The-STEN-MKII-(complete-machine-plans

Anyone who has taken a high school shop class has the necessary skills. Contrast that to the chemistry skills needs to run a meth lab. If a criminal can find someone to make and sell meth, why would it be any harder to find someone who can make and sell them a gun? Even a submachine gun.

But chances are, a bystander at a shootout who happened to be carrying and tried to intervene would probably just get themselves killed rather than save anyone else.

Why so, are they worse shots than the police?

At least being in civilian dress, they have the element of surprise against the aggressor. A police officer in uniform would most likely be the first target.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Agree.

There is a quote to the effect of “The best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them vigorously”. I think this needs to happen in this case for anti-gunners to see the effect of their ill conceived laws.

“I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.” That was by Ulysses S. Grant in his second inaugural address.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The second amendment, on the other hand, was written a long time ago. It made sense that people would have been armed. Nowadays, since you aren’t all about to join the Militia any time ever,…

I would join one in a heartbeat. If, say 100,000 or so armed citizens would march on Washington, surround the White House and demand that President Obama step down I would be right there with them.

 

[J_Peterson]

So you’re saying that if you support a law then you can break it at will because reasons.

I’m saying (over and over) that if he broke the law he should be fined, as opposed to jail, since he is not a danger to anyone but still allegedly broke the law. What everybody else here (it seems) is saying is that they disagree with the law but they should put him in jail for breaking it because he was supposedly for the law. That is dishonest and is vengeance, which is not acceptable. If I disagree with a law I don’t want anybody to be arrested or charged for it. To repeat, if you are against a law and see it as unjust but want someone to be charged by it simply because they were originally for the law, you are being dishonest.

 

[Michael68]

The problem is people not understanding the second amendment. The “militia” is armed citizens. Also " this right shall not be infringed upon". Gun control is unconstitutional

 

[oliver927]

“I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.” That was by Ulysses S. Grant in his second inaugural address.

Thank you. I was hoping someone would know the exact quote and share it.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

I’m saying (over and over) that if he broke the law he should be fined, as opposed to jail, since he is not a danger to anyone but still allegedly broke the law. What everybody else here (it seems) is saying is that they disagree with the law but they should put him in jail for breaking it because he was supposedly for the law. That is dishonest and is vengeance, which is not acceptable. If I disagree with a law I don’t want anybody to be arrested or charged for it. To repeat, if you are against a law and see it as unjust but want someone to be charged by it simply because they were originally for the law, you are being dishonest.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

How about if they just made the guns. How would gun control prohibit that. It’s not exactly rocket science. A revolver is close to 200 year old technology. The materials (steel) can be obtained at any junkyard, and the tools at any good hardware store.

Back in WW-II, the British developed the Sten submachine gun. It was specifically designed to be manufactured in garage shops.

During post WW-II British occupied Palestine, the Zionist had a shop that was turning them out by the hundreds. The shop was located in the basement of a laundry that served British officers, the very men in charge of making sure that neither the Zionists nor the Arabs got ahold of arms. The sound of the washers and dryers doing the laundry of the British officers covered up the noise of the gun making operation in the basement below

HEre are the plans for the Sten in PDF form.
milsurps.com/content.php?r=422-Blueprints-for-The-STEN-MKII-(complete-machine-plans

Anyone who has taken a high school shop class has the necessary skills. Contrast that to the chemistry skills needs to run a meth lab. If a criminal can find someone to make and sell meth, why would it be any harder to find someone who can make and sell them a gun? Even a submachine gun.

Why so, are they worse shots than the police?

At least being in civilian dress, they have the element of surprise against the aggressor. A police officer in uniform would most likely be the first target.

Why don’t you look at how the rest of the Western world does it? The lower death rates and accident rates that occur there indicate that advocates of gun control are correct and that gun control does reduce gun crime. Criminals making their own guns, or smuggling them, still don’t increase the gun related death rates of other countries. Gun control works.

 

[Usige]

Gun control works.

Except that study after study on gun control in the US says that no law has been shown to reduce violent crime.

We can’t simply point to another country and say they ban guns and the have low murder rates as proof that access to guns causes murders. That is a false correlation. They are different societies and what drive violence in one culture does not always map to other cultures. Despite what people think, the US and the various European countries are not the same cultures.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

The problem is people not understanding the second amendment. The “militia” is armed citizens. Also " this right shall not be infringed upon". Gun control is unconstitutional

It’s not that we don’t understand it. It was written in a different time and needs to be updated. A country’s constitution is not set in stone.

If you believe that gun control truly is unconstitutional, then it infringes on the rights of criminals, mentally ill people and minors if they are denied access to firearms.

And it says nothing about the style of weapon that you have a right to bear. I’m sure the founding fathers were not thinking of semis at the time.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Except that study after study on gun control in the US says that no law has been shown to reduce violent crime.

We can’t simply point to another country and say they ban guns and the have low murder rates as proof that access to guns causes murders. That is a false correlation. They are different societies and what drive violence in one culture does not always map to other cultures. Despite what people think, the US and the various European countries are not the same cultures.

That’s because the NRA seriously hampers any attempts at national gun control.

It actually stands to reason that very strict gun laws will prevent gun crime. Most gun crime is normal people who snap and shoot their family or neighbours. If they don’t have guns in the first place, they can’t shoot them.

Canada has less gun crime than the USA too. Also Australia managed to pretty much eradicate mass shootings by bringing in very strict gun control laws. Thus showing a true correlation between gun control and reduced gun deaths.

I agree in one sense though. Gun obsession is part of American culture. Sort of like binge drinking in Ireland. The solution in Ireland’s case is not to pretend like binge drinking isn’t a problem, but to acknowledge there is a cultural flaw and try to fix it.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Were you unaware that the KKK was the military arm of the Democratic Party?

It was affiliated with southern Democrats from about 1870 into the early 20th century. Not in the least relevant to anything that has happened in the last 90 years. But I understand it is a talking point used by the far right to divert attention to the racism in their ranks.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

They apparently don’t teach current events either. How many current Democrats in office are members of the KKK?

But but but 150 years ago… but but but Robert Byrd… but but but Abraham Lincoln…