Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

Page 2 - 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Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?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

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Ok then muskets only. And yea go ahead you can open carry those. As many as you like,...
The word musket does not appear in the 2A. The right to bear arms, within the context of a well regulated militia, is still applicable and relevent as written. It’s called the National Guard.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
No.

However, I do think there should be universal background checks even for private sales, there should be universal mandatory waiting period of 3-7 days, and I do think firearms sales should be restricted to 21+ years old. It is infuriating that NRA/GOP not only opposes these proposals, but chooses to openly attack gun violence victims instead.
 

Carson Dyle

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2012
8,174
524
126
It will be, although it won't be during my lifetime. I'm absolutely 100% certain that it will happen some day. By the bidding of the majority of American citizens and their elected representatives.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
No.

However, I do think there should be universal background checks even for private sales, there should be universal mandatory waiting period of 3-7 days, and I do think firearms sales should be restricted to 21+ years old. It is infuriating that NRA/GOP not only opposes these proposals, but chooses to openly attack gun violence victims instead.

Fine, but I can't help but wonder if this would've stopped meticulous killers like the Las Vegas shooter. The 21+ rule might've prevented Parkland.

But I can't get around the mass-shooting aspect of this. We can have those laws perfectly enforced, but I don't think they'll stop mass shootings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OutHouse

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
2,000
126
For myself I don't think it should be repealed, even as a non-gun owner. I believe the citizenry should be empowered to defend itself, if at the cost of gun crime and death.

One wonders how the citizenry of countries without a 2nd Amendment manage to be so much safer than the citizenry of the USA even without being empowered to defend itself.

And for the tiny people with tiny microdongs who need guns to feel like men, the 2nd Amendment does not need to be repealed. It just needs to be further limited to remove the guns that are the most dangerous. The 2nd Amendment can go on just fine without high capacity rifles that serve no real purpose for sports or self-defense.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
Fine, but I can't help but wonder if this would've stopped meticulous killers like the Las Vegas shooter. The 21+ rule might've prevented Parkland.

But I can't get around the mass-shooting aspect of this. We can have those laws perfectly enforced, but I don't think they'll stop mass shootings.
Yes, you're correct, it might have stopped Parkland shooter, it wouldn't have stopped Las Vegas shooter, and it definitely wouldn't stop all of the mass shootings. However, I think it's more than reasonable to put more regulations in place that might stop some of the shootings without infringing on 2nd amendment.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,015
4,785
136
I will always say no to repealing 2A, however, we need to amend Title 18 with more express terminology redefining what is legal to own without a tax stamp. High capacity magazines and drums should be subject to registration and a tax stamp and bump stocks should be outlawed here rather than by a temporary order that can be overturned or expire after a short span.

Mental health issues need to be well defined here just like with other laws such as the ADA which had to be amended with the ADAAA to further clarify Congresses intent.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,076
136
I will always say no to repealing 2A, however, we need to amend Title 18 with more express terminology redefining what is legal to own without a tax stamp. High capacity magazines and drums should be subject to registration and a tax stamp and bump stocks should be outlawed here rather than by a temporary order that can be overturned or expire after a short span.

Mental health issues need to be well defined here just like with other laws such as the ADA which had to be amended with the ADAAA to further clarify Congresses intent.
I still don't have a well defined thought about how mental health should be addressed in this discussion, which is why I often think it's truly a canard. Anyone with mental illness shouldn't have a gun? Which mental illnesses? Is it permanent or not? Should this apply to other rights as well?
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,753
6,368
136
It should be amended that assault rifles are not included in the 2nd amendment. Its hard to imagine the founding fathers had mass shootings with domestic assault rifles in mind when they made the 2nd amendment.

Original intent good.

NRA intent and abuse thereof: bad!
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I still don't have a well defined thought about how mental health should be addressed in this discussion, which is why I often think it's truly a canard. Anyone with mental illness shouldn't have a gun? Which mental illnesses? Is it permanent or not? Should this apply to other rights as well?
It's not that complicated.

If the psychiatrist determines that they are threat to themselves or others, no guns. The psychiatrist told this to the police in the Aurora shooting and they blew it and failed to flag him. He wouldn't have been to purchase the gun he used in the shooting.

You're not going to catch everybody, but several high profile mass shootings would likely have been averted if the rules were followed properly.

Fern
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elfear

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
It should be amended that assault rifles are not included in the 2nd amendment. Its hard to imagine the founding fathers had mass shootings with domestic assault rifles in mind when they made the 2nd amendment.

Original intent good.

NRA intent and abuse thereof: bad!
Yeah, and I doubt they had porn in mind when they wrote the 1st.

Fern
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paladin3

rise

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2004
9,116
46
91
I say "no," but nor do I worship the 2nd Amendment. It was not meant to enable the ownership of any gun; people in 1791 didn't anticipate guns being so lethal that one person could murder dozens in a matter of minutes. They certainly didn't expect the balance of power between the military and civilians to be so lopsided that the military is virtually guaranteed to win any major engagement.

We also need to get away from the culture that reveres guns. That doesn't involve dropping violent movies or games, as plenty of far safer countries still enjoy those; instead, it's about treating guns more as the dangerous tools they are rather than power symbols and playthings. Run gun amnesty programs. Don't take your kid to the firing range. And permanently ban the gun industry from all forms of lobbying; gun lobbying should represent owners, not manufacturers like it does today.
I like this, add harsher penalties for more gun related crimes. And we have education on bullying, drugs, sex etc already in our schools from a young age, how about adding some common sense gun education as well.
 

1sikbITCH

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
4,194
574
126
My vote is Fuck No. I only disagree with the idea that if everything that is ever invented is covered under the Second Amendment as long as it discharges a projectile. I didn't see that language in there. What I see are rulings that continually re-define what a firearm actually is.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates

The latest:

(3)
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Pretty sure when they wrote the Amendment there were no repeaters, no automatics, etc. There were only flintlocks and whatnot. Yet today anything that discharges a projectile and can be operated by one person is called a firearm, except for the very firearms that were intended to be protected by the Second Amendment when it was written.

If you wish to expand the meaning of the Second Amendment to include any weapon that someone can hold and discharge a projectile you are constantly expanding and changing the meaning to reflect the time.

If you can change the meaning that way than you should be able change the meaning of the Amendment in other ways as well.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,015
4,785
136
I still don't have a well defined thought about how mental health should be addressed in this discussion, which is why I often think it's truly a canard. Anyone with mental illness shouldn't have a gun? Which mental illnesses? Is it permanent or not? Should this apply to other rights as well?
Other rights don't send metal pieces flying at high speeds killing people, however, people with mental issues should not be allowed to drive either. The ADA/ADAAA spells out mental issues and should be used to guide any language prohibiting persons with such a condition from gun ownership which I feel is prudent.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
No, we shouldn't repeal. Change what makes sense to change to reduce gun violence.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
Yeah, I don't see how limiting 2nd amendment to only muskets (or bolt action rifles depending on how generous one is) just because forefathers did not foresee assault rifles argument makes any sense.

Forefathers did not foresee a lot of things. They did not foresee invention of email and phone. Should we only expect privacy when sending old fashioned letters? And give up our privacy when we send an email or talk on the phone? I don't think so.

You can't have it both ways.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
Well science says owning a gun makes one less safe. Period. So looking at it from that point of view it obviously should be.

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.
Can I like this 12 dozen billion times?
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,025
2,593
136
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

uallas5

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2005
1,409
1,501
136
NO.

But it also shouldn't be worshipped either. Some people treat as if Jesus himself wrote it using the blood dripping from his crown while he was suspended on the cross.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,076
136
It's not that complicated.

If the psychiatrist determines that they are threat to themselves or others, no guns. The psychiatrist told this to the police in the Aurora shooting and they blew it and failed to flag him. He wouldn't have been to purchase the gun he used in the shooting.

You're not going to catch everybody, but several high profile mass shootings would likely have been averted if the rules were followed properly.

Fern

Only someone with a precursory is understanding of mental health would say something as simple as "it's not that complicated."

Which psychiatrists can make this determination? How long does it last? Do they need to support it with any type of evidence? Is a second opinion required? How sure do we have to be that the patient is a threat, it's not exactly binary, is it?
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,076
136
Other rights don't send metal pieces flying at high speeds killing people, however, people with mental issues should not be allowed to drive either. The ADA/ADAAA spells out mental issues and should be used to guide any language prohibiting persons with such a condition from gun ownership which I feel is prudent.

Certainly I don't disagree with you on this point, I just mean that it's fairly complex. Are we "criminalizing" a medical condition or actions?
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,244
2,260
136
Don’t “stolen” guns make up a large percentage of gun homicides in the US? Seems like part of the discussion around gun homicide reduction should address these irresponsible owners/dealers. Perhaps even setup extremely harsh penalties for possession of a stolen gun? I know the NRA brings this fact up but their answer seems to be to arm more people. Seems like a good strategy for selling guns but not sure if it’s the best way to actually reduce the number of people being murdered.