• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?


  • Total voters
    118
Nov 29, 2006
14,576
2,346
126
Erosion is a process. If the 2nd were to be repealed, what is to guarantee that the 1st, 4th and others wouldn't be? They'll say "we got that done, what else can we take, to gain further control over the people?" I want a less intrusive government, not more.
Obviously the next step would be forcing you to gay marry your toaster. Everyone knows this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z
Nov 29, 2006
14,576
2,346
126
Ok so my question for the "ban all firearms" group is.. If we ban all firearms and all the legal owners turn in their firearms what will we do next about all the illegal firearms still coming in and out there in criminals hands?
We confiscate them when used or found in a crime. Duh.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
It shouldn't be repealed, and maybe 1 out of 100 Democrats are actually asking for it to be repealed (there are a higher percentage of Republicans who still want to see Obama's birth certificate).

We do need universal background checks, a modern NICS system, we need to raise the age of purchase for rifles to 21, we need to require secure storage in homes with children under the age of 18, and we need to think about requiring mandatory gun safety courses. It boggles the mind that someone with a clean record and absolutely zero knowledge of firearms can walk into a store and walk out 5 minutes later with an AR-15.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,734
136
I think we need to respect the right to bear arms, at least the arms that existed in 1789. That was black powder flintlocks. Taking Scalia's originalist view of the Constitution that's what they were talking about. It's all they knew. They could not foresee future developments.

I'm good with that, with black powder weapons that won't work w/o knapped flint. I'll grant that. It's what they were talking about. The rest is up to us to decide.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
876
126
I think we need to respect the right to bear arms, at least the arms that existed in 1789. That was black powder flintlocks. Taking Scalia's originalist view of the Constitution that's what they were talking about. It's all they knew. They could not foresee future developments.

I'm good with that, with black powder weapons that won't work w/o knapped flint. I'll grant that. It's what they were talking about. The rest is up to us to decide.
Aw, come on! At least leave us with percussion cap pistols! Otherwise, I'll have to turn in my 1858 Remington New Army assault revolver.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,086
366
136
I think we need to respect the right to bear arms, at least the arms that existed in 1789. That was black powder flintlocks. Taking Scalia's originalist view of the Constitution that's what they were talking about. It's all they knew. They could not foresee future developments.

I'm good with that, with black powder weapons that won't work w/o knapped flint. I'll grant that. It's what they were talking about. The rest is up to us to decide.
I've seen this written before, and it's done by people that only think they know what was around then. There are a few different guns that were designed that did more than just the musket that was popular among the armies. The Nock gun, the Puckle gun were both around towards when the Ameircans came around and started it's fight. Hell even the Chinese had a repeating crossbow. To pretend that the Founders who wrote all this weren't aware of these guns, and the fact that everything including Firearms wouldn't change is just wishful thinking. While it's impossible to know for sure, there's more than enough evidence that they wouldn't have cared. The idea was every person could get their arms to go fight off foreign invaders. Considering England was still an issue at the time, I've little doubt they would have loved to have what we have today.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,734
136
Aw, come on! At least leave us with percussion cap pistols! Otherwise, I'll have to turn in my 1858 Remington New Army assault revolver.
Sorry- the percussion cap wasn't introduced until ~30 years later. It was the first practical advance in firearms design in ~200 years, a major improvement over the stone age tech of flint knapping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percussion_cap

Few would dispute your right to keep it, however, and I'm not one of them.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
876
126
Sorry- the percussion cap wasn't introduced until ~30 years later. It was the first practical advance in firearms design in ~200 years, a major improvement over the stone age tech of flint knapping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percussion_cap

Few would dispute your right to keep it, however, and I'm not one of them.
I will admit flintlocks are sexy. Plus you just need powder, lead for balls and flint can be found on the ground many places. No need to order any of those new fangled caps from a factory back east.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,734
136
I've seen this written before, and it's done by people that only think they know what was around then. There are a few different guns that were designed that did more than just the musket that was popular among the armies. The Nock gun, the Puckle gun were both around towards when the Ameircans came around and started it's fight. Hell even the Chinese had a repeating crossbow. To pretend that the Founders who wrote all this weren't aware of these guns, and the fact that everything including Firearms wouldn't change is just wishful thinking. While it's impossible to know for sure, there's more than enough evidence that they wouldn't have cared. The idea was every person could get their arms to go fight off foreign invaders. Considering England was still an issue at the time, I've little doubt they would have loved to have what we have today.
So what? Even the most advanced firearms of the day were black powder flintlocks, as I said.
 

Kneedragger

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2013
1,192
45
91
I think we need to respect the right to bear arms, at least the arms that existed in 1789. That was black powder flintlocks. Taking Scalia's originalist view of the Constitution that's what they were talking about. It's all they knew. They could not foresee future developments.

I'm good with that, with black powder weapons that won't work w/o knapped flint. I'll grant that. It's what they were talking about. The rest is up to us to decide.
Well maybe we should limit people's freedom of speech by not allowing them to use it on TV and the internet? Also limit the religions in the US to what was available at the time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OutHouse and IJTSSG
Jan 25, 2011
16,083
7,570
146
Well maybe we should limit people's freedom of speech by not allowing them to use it on TV and the internet? Also limit the religions in the US to what was available at the time?
You realize the government already limits speech on television right? They have since... well... its invention pretty much? Your provider and the sites you use, domain hosts etc... limit your speech on the internet.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,734
136
Well maybe we should limit people's freedom of speech by not allowing them to use it on TV and the internet? Also limit the religions in the US to what was available at the time?
They already had mass media at the time- the printing press. They only had one kind of firearm, however, & it hadn't really changed in 150 years.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
876
126
They already had mass media at the time- the printing press. They only had one kind of firearm, however, & it hadn't really changed in 150 years.
Can we just STFU with this argument or are you guys just arguing for fun?

I'm pretty sure the 2A authors didn't specify exactly which weapons were legal or illegal specifically so that it could be interpreted by the courts as technology and future needs changed. Good laws are specific about their intentions and purpose, but don't state every tiny detail because that makes it too easy to skirt the law on a technicality.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,734
136
Can we just STFU with this argument or are you guys just arguing for fun?

I'm pretty sure the 2A authors didn't specify exactly which weapons were legal or illegal specifically so that it could be interpreted by the courts as technology and future needs changed. Good laws are specific about their intentions and purpose, but don't state every tiny detail because that makes it too easy to skirt the law on a technicality.
They only knew what existed at the time so that's what they were talking about. Black powder firearms, the most advanced being flintlocks. They didn't have precognition.

Shee-it, Sherlock- the Constitution doesn't say you can have any damned fool gun that modern technology can create.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,651
132
106
They only knew what existed at the time so that's what they were talking about. Black powder firearms, the most advanced being flintlocks. They didn't have precognition.

Shee-it, Sherlock- the Constitution doesn't say you can have any damned fool gun that modern technology can create.
I'm sure George Washington would have told someone to 'get that M16 outta here it's not constitutional'. :rolleyes:
 

Kneedragger

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2013
1,192
45
91
You realize the government already limits speech on television right? They have since... well... its invention pretty much? Your provider and the sites you use, domain hosts etc... limit your speech on the internet.
Probably in the same way your freedom of speech is limited in general? I know this already..

What is the point youre going for though?
 

Kneedragger

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2013
1,192
45
91
They already had mass media at the time- the printing press. They only had one kind of firearm, however, & it hadn't really changed in 150 years.
Ok I missed the news paper sorry. Thanks for pointing it out.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
15,184
3,978
136

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,871
19,552
136
Wrong. Make it illegal to own a gun and criminals will still have them. You are delusional. If the government can get that involved in our lives, we will have some serious problems and greatly diminished freedoms, because if what you are advocating happens, the next will be other rights. NO! You are either an incredibly stupid, easily triggered individual, or worse, an outright brown shirt commie. Which is it?
I think it should just be illegal for you to have guns. You're clearly mentally deranged, and have displayed yourself to be a wholly irresponsible child. I mean, you sound like an eight year old. No responsible adult would consider you a proper person to own a gun.

You'd just as soon run into a Whole Foods and start shooting in the hopes that you can randomly off some libtards. And that's when you're in a good mood!

I wouldn't support repealing the 2nd amendment, but I'd support disarming compuwiz1, because he is a threat to the safety of all other humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,313
1,157
136
Liar, but we all know you are Jhhnn. Hell, you don't even try to hide it anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

"The Girandoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. Many references to the Girandoni air rifles mention lethal combat ranges of 125 to 150 yards and some extend that range considerably."

A 20 round+ magazine repeating firearm in use by a government and well know to the Founding Fathers before the Constitution was written. Not a muzzle loading flintlock at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,435
4,930
136
I think it should just be illegal for you to have guns. You're clearly mentally deranged, and have displayed yourself to be a wholly irresponsible child. I mean, you sound like an eight year old. No responsible adult would consider you a proper person to own a gun.

You'd just as soon run into a Whole Foods and start shooting in the hopes that you can randomly off some libtards. And that's when you're in a good mood!

I wouldn't support repealing the 2nd amendment, but I'd support disarming compuwiz1, because he is a threat to the safety of all other humans.
Well, you're talking about a US conservative, so they don't really have a coherent ideology, as much as a reactionary stance that they've been trained to take, depending on what Masters Limbaugh and Hannity are shitting into their skulls this week.

What's funny is that the conservative said "outright brown shirt commie", clearly misunderstanding that brown shirts were right wing authoritarian Fascist-enablers in pre-Nazi Germany.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,793
399
136
No need. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee the right for anyone anywhere can own any weapon for any reason. Well unless you ask the Nra.
 

DietDrThunder

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2001
2,262
326
126
Repeal it. Owning a specific weapon is a privilege not a right.

You have a natural right to self defense. You don't have a natural right to use whatever weapon you want.
Then I say come and try and take it from me.

Besides, even if you do get one of them, you'll really never know how many I own.

Ghost AR-15
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY