Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[jackstar7]

I'm asking questions. What fallacy do you think I am arguing?

Argument from absurdity.

 

[BurnItDwn]

It won't be, but, I think some level of disarming is inevitable.
Let the hunters keep their hunting weapons.
Let the country folks keep their weapons as they have legitimate uses.
Let the sport shooters keep their sport shooting guns.
Let the hoarders who keep them under lock and key keep them.

but, keep them off the streets and out of the cities.

 

[FerrelGeek]

He's a gun nutter and you can't have rational discussions with gun nutters.

Let's talk about putting rational limitations on abortion, free speech, freedom of religion, etc and see where that discussion goes...

 

[FerrelGeek]

Science would say that owning cars, motorcycles, swimming pools, swords, hedge trimmers, etc would make one less safe. No one needs a swimming pool, sword, motorcycle, or hedge trimmer, so let's ban them. A car can certainly be argued as a necessity in today's society, but one could argue that mandating a 35 mph speed limit would make people safer, so let's do that.

Serious questions - what's acceptable to take away from people (or mandate items for people to do) to make them safer? Do we order people to move to urban areas where cars wouldn't be needed (do to mandated public transportation) to potentially make them safer? Do we amend the first amendment to state that speech, assembly, the press, and religion are only free if they don't offend politically approved victim groups?

As for me, I'd rather live in a society that allowed for people to accept certain risks for the sake of personal freedom that live in a society where I had to ask permission from government to do anything besides breathe. This might be utopia to elitist liberals, but I'd prefer what we have now to the kind of hell on earth that would be.

If we didn't have incompetent LEOs, like the FBI and the Broward County sheriffs department, maybe we'd be able to keep weapons out of the hands of nutjobs like Cruz.

Well science says owning a gun makes one less safe. Period. So looking at it from that point of view it obviously should be.

I can hear the sound of buching panties from here. Go ahead kids, unload. Unlike some of you on here, I can take getting flamed without crying for a safe space and needing a Tide pod to suck on for consolation. /sarcasm

But the debate is all about emotion, not facts. Since the "definitely not compensating for anything" types love playing with their toys, it will never happen.

 

[jackstar7]

Let's talk about putting rational limitations on abortion, free speech, freedom of religion, etc and see where that discussion goes...

Not all rights are the same, dumbnuts.

 

[Veliko]

Science would say that owning cars, motorcycles, swimming pools, swords, hedge trimmers, etc would make one less safe. No one needs a swimming pool, sword, motorcycle, or hedge trimmer, so let's ban them. A car can certainly be argued as a necessity in today's society, but one could argue that mandating a 35 mph speed limit would make people safer, so let's do that.

Serious questions - what's acceptable to take away from people (or mandate items for people to do) to make them safer? Do we order people to move to urban areas where cars wouldn't be needed (do to mandated public transportation) to potentially make them safer? Do we amend the first amendment to state that speech, assembly, the press, and religion are only free if they don't offend politically approved victim groups?

As for me, I'd rather live in a society that allowed for people to accept certain risks for the sake of personal freedom that live in a society where I had to ask permission from government to do anything besides breathe. This might be utopia to elitist liberals, but I'd prefer what we have now to the kind of hell on earth that would be.

If we didn't have incompetent LEOs, like the FBI and the Broward County sheriffs department, maybe we'd be able to keep weapons out of the hands of nutjobs like Cruz.

Do you consider yourself to be a responsible gun owner?

Because if you genuinely genuinely believe that guns can be compared to cars, motorcycles, swimming pools, swords, and hedge trimmers in that context then you quite clearly aren't.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Science would say that owning cars, motorcycles, swimming pools, swords, hedge trimmers, etc would make one less safe. No one needs a swimming pool, sword, motorcycle, or hedge trimmer, so let's ban them. A car can certainly be argued as a necessity in today's society, but one could argue that mandating a 35 mph speed limit would make people safer, so let's do that.

Serious questions - what's acceptable to take away from people (or mandate items for people to do) to make them safer? Do we order people to move to urban areas where cars wouldn't be needed (do to mandated public transportation) to potentially make them safer? Do we amend the first amendment to state that speech, assembly, the press, and religion are only free if they don't offend politically approved victim groups?

As for me, I'd rather live in a society that allowed for people to accept certain risks for the sake of personal freedom that live in a society where I had to ask permission from government to do anything besides breathe. This might be utopia to elitist liberals, but I'd prefer what we have now to the kind of hell on earth that would be.

If we didn't have incompetent LEOs, like the FBI and the Broward County sheriffs department, maybe we'd be able to keep weapons out of the hands of nutjobs like Cruz.

You know if we lowered the speed limits to 25 miles an hour and forced car manufacturers ala CAFE standards to place speed limit governors on all cars we could lower deaths by cars to almost 0. We just need to have the intestinal fortitude to do it.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Let's talk about putting rational limitations on abortion, free speech, freedom of religion, etc and see where that discussion goes...

There are, and have been for many years, limits on abortion, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

 

[IronWing]

There are, and have been for many years, limits on abortion, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Limitations, yes, but they aren't rational.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Limitations, yes, but they aren't rational.

I may have just been whooshed ... I don't know, I find sarcasm difficult in writing.

In any case, some limitations like "you can't threaten to kill somebody" seem rational, but, lots of the anti-abortion laws are indeed unreasonable and irrational.

 

[ivwshane]

What point are you making here?

Slippery slope.

 

[ivwshane]

Let's talk about putting rational limitations on abortion, free speech, freedom of religion, etc and see where that discussion goes...

Start a thread!

 

[Paladin3]

You mean that? They are the gun lobby, the political arm of the gun manufacturers. Those guys view their contributions to the NRA as an investment, money well spent to help insure that they make big profits going forward. If you give them money, you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

I don't agree with your "solution." It's almost like you are taunting me to join the NRA.

 

[soulcougher73]

Science would say that owning cars, motorcycles, swimming pools, swords, hedge trimmers, etc would make one less safe. No one needs a swimming pool, sword, motorcycle, or hedge trimmer, so let's ban them. A car can certainly be argued as a necessity in today's society, but one could argue that mandating a 35 mph speed limit would make people safer, so let's do that.

Serious questions - what's acceptable to take away from people (or mandate items for people to do) to make them safer? Do we order people to move to urban areas where cars wouldn't be needed (do to mandated public transportation) to potentially make them safer? Do we amend the first amendment to state that speech, assembly, the press, and religion are only free if they don't offend politically approved victim groups?

As for me, I'd rather live in a society that allowed for people to accept certain risks for the sake of personal freedom that live in a society where I had to ask permission from government to do anything besides breathe. This might be utopia to elitist liberals, but I'd prefer what we have now to the kind of hell on earth that would be.

If we didn't have incompetent LEOs, like the FBI and the Broward County sheriffs department, maybe we'd be able to keep weapons out of the hands of nutjobs like Cruz.

Does a gun have another designed use besides killing things? All the things you mention sans Swords have actual uses that don't revolve around death. Sure people can die from them but that is not their designed intent, where as you cannot say the same of a gun. So this falls back on the whole cant have a rational discussion with gun nutters. You are too close to the subject to think rationally. I'm not even 100% anti-guns, but i see a bad comparison when i see one

 

[BurnItDwn]

Does a gun have another designed use besides killing things? All the things you mention sans Swords have actual uses that don't revolve around death. Sure people can die from them but that is not their designed intent, where as you cannot say the same of a gun. So this falls back on the whole cant have a rational discussion with gun nutters. You are too close to the subject to think rationally. I'm not even 100% anti-guns, but i see a bad comparison when i see one

I am annoyed by those door to door electricity salesmen that claim to be from the utility company, but, really they are trying to scam people into signing up for a competing utility company. I have a no solicitors sign, but they come anyhow. I wish it was legal to shoot them for the good of the community. There should be a trophy for shooting them. Can we make shooting them covered as part of the Second Amendment?

That would be a use besides "killing things" since it would be "making them leave me alone and stop bothering me."

 

[Bird222]

Not all rights are the same, dumbnuts.

Really? So what is the pecking order of constitutional rights? And what committee decided which were the most important?

 

[Bird222]

Argument from absurdity.

What is wrong with asking the question of what are acceptable deaths? This is of course assuming that we agree that whether we realize it or not we do accept people dying from all sorts of things because we think people ought to be free to live their lives. So if we naturally do this, I want to know what is the acceptable level of people dying from guns?

Still waiting on Ch33zw1z to respond but I'm also interested in any anti-2A person's opinion.

 

[jackstar7]

Really? So what is the pecking order of constitutional rights? And what committee decided which were the most important?

We do as a society. Hence why changes have been made to some, others have restrictions, etc.
Why would you seek to equate them? Oh, is it because the little 2A is looking weak? That's because it is weak and it's time is coming to an end. Guns have proven to be a net negative to an otherwise prosperous society.

What is wrong with asking the question of what are acceptable deaths? This is of course assuming that we agree that whether we realize it or not we do accept people dying from all sorts of things because we think people ought to be free to live their lives. So if we naturally do this, I want to know what is the acceptable level of people dying from guns?

Still waiting on Ch33zw1z to respond but I'm also interested in any anti-2A person's opinion.

Without providing any context at all, you are asking a question wide open with loopholes and pedantic bullshit waiting to spring forth. Rather than ask the question, why not state your position and let others question the logic of it? Let it be tested.

 

[ch33zw1z]

What percentage of death are acceptable losses to you? Is it 0%? Let's face it, practically everything we do it's possible for someone to die from. It's the cost of living a 'free' life. So what's your percentage for deaths from gun crime and in particular AR-15 deaths? Also, if AR's are outlawed and a mass shooting happens with some other gun are you going to want to ban/regulate that one too or are you going to stop and say there is enough gun regulation at this point?

0% intentional would be the optimal goal.

Of course accidents happen, so 0% altogether is unrealistic.

So reading the entire thread is definitely daunting, ill state this again, I dont want to see more firearm regulations. Guns dont fire themselves, so people are the variable wrt gun violence. I haven't advocated anywhere to restrict what available guns there are.

I'd rather approach the responsibility from the people angle, as it's our personal and societal responsibility to look at the problem from the perspective of what can be corrected or changed to reduce gun violence.

 

[Amused]

My opinion (not that anyone cares, probably but hey., you asked)

No.

What should be done immediately is closing the private sale loophole so that the forbidden groups who have lost their right to arms have a much more difficult time getting them. Then enforce it strictly.

The vast majority of the US does not require a background check to purchase a gun from a gun show or private party. Making the purchase of a gun by a teenager, felon or mentally ill person easier than it is for a teen to buy beer.

Let's at LEAST address this first. Put aside calls for bans of this or that and let's address this glaring loophole once and for all on a national level. It does no good to ban the purchase of something for certain groups if there is no check in place to stop them much less convict them, and sellers for violating this law.

Then go from there.

The NRA is NOT the org my father and I joined in the 70s. That NRA was all about firearm safety and common sense regulations. Yes, the NRA at one time supported regulations.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, the NRA at one time supported regulations.

Though mostly when the Black Panthers showed up armed.

 

[Amused]

Though mostly when the Black Panthers showed up armed.

Yes, I guess that was some of it. But not all. The NRA was not the bat-shit insane, militia inspired, paranoid lunatic fringe driven crap it is today. Not at all. It was all safety, hunting and education then.

In fact, the start of the NRA supporting regulation was actually the crime sprees of the great depression.

http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/


In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police.

The 1930s crime spree of the Prohibition era, which still summons images of outlaws outfitted with machine guns, prompted President Franklin Roosevelt to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

For the next 30 years, the NRA continued to support gun control. By the late 1960s a shift in the NRA platform was on the horizon.

On Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. He shot the president with an Italian military surplus rifle purchased from a NRA mail-order advertisement. NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth agreed at a congressional hearing that mail-order sales should be banned stating, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” The NRA also supported California’s Mulford Act of 1967, which had banned carrying loaded weapons in public in response to the Black Panther Party’s impromptu march on the State Capitol to protest gun control legislation on May 2, 1967.

The summer riots of 1967 and assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 prompted Congress to reenact a version of the FDR-era gun control laws as the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act updated the law to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with a show of ID. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

A shift in the NRA’s platform occurred when in 1971 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, during a house raid, shot and paralyzed longtime NRA member Kenyon Ballew suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons. The NRA swiftly condemned the federal government. As Winkler points out, following the incident NRA board member and editor of New Hampshire’s Manchester Union Leader William Loeb referred to the federal agents as “Treasury Gestapo”; the association soon appropriated the language of the Panthers insisting that the Second Amendment protected individual gun rights.

For much of the 20th century, the NRA had lobbied and co-authored legislation that was similar to the modern legislative measures the association now characterizes as unconstitutional. But by the 1970s the NRA came to view attempts to enact gun-control laws as threats to the Second Amendment, a viewpoint strongly articulated at last week’s Republican National Convention by current NRA leader Chris Cox. Today’s NRA could be summed up with words uttered by the Black Panther Party 40 years earlier: “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.”

 

[Bird222]

We do as a society. Hence why changes have been made to some, others have restrictions, etc.
Why would you seek to equate them? Oh, is it because the little 2A is looking weak? That's because it is weak and it's time is coming to an end. Guns have proven to be a net negative to an otherwise prosperous society.

Without providing any context at all, you are asking a question wide open with loopholes and pedantic bullshit waiting to spring forth. Rather than ask the question, why not state your position and let others question the logic of it? Let it be tested.

It must be harder than I thought to answer a direct question. I'll try again. What is the pecking order of constitutional rights? To keep it simple just list the Bill of Rights in order of importance. What is the percentage of acceptable deaths by gun?

 

[Bird222]

0% intentional would be the optimal goal.

Of course accidents happen, so 0% altogether is unrealistic.

So reading the entire thread is definitely daunting, ill state this again, I dont want to see more firearm regulations. Guns dont fire themselves, so people are the variable wrt gun violence. I haven't advocated anywhere to restrict what available guns there are.

I'd rather approach the responsibility from the people angle, as it's our personal and societal responsibility to look at the problem from the perspective of what can be corrected or changed to reduce gun violence.

I wasn't asking what the goal is. I think most would agree with 0%. I asked what was acceptable to you?

 

[Atreus21]

My opinion (not that anyone cares, probably but hey., you asked)

No.

What should be done immediately is closing the private sale loophole so that the forbidden groups who have lost their right to arms have a much more difficult time getting them. Then enforce it strictly.

The vast majority of the US does not require a background check to purchase a gun from a gun show or private party. Making the purchase of a gun by a teenager, felon or mentally ill person easier than it is for a teen to buy beer.

Let's at LEAST address this first. Put aside calls for bans of this or that and let's address this glaring loophole once and for all on a national level. It does no good to ban the purchase of something for certain groups if there is no check in place to stop them much less convict them, and sellers for violating this law.

Then go from there.

The NRA is NOT the org my father and I joined in the 70s. That NRA was all about firearm safety and common sense regulations. Yes, the NRA at one time supported regulations.

As I understand it, the gun show loophole has nothing to do with gun shows, strictly speaking. Federal law exempts from background checks sales between private individuals within state lines. Whether a gun is sold at a gun show or garage sale, the law makes no distinction regarding the venue.

An FFL dealer at a gun show is bound by the same restrictions (background checks) he or she would be at a storefront.