Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[Veliko]

If morality could be regulated, maybe a lot of the problems would be solved. Problem is you can't regulate morality, at least not in a free country. You can ban all the inanimate objects you fear, but you'll never change a person's evil desires or their moral compass. I don't have enough communist in my blood to allow that kind of government intrusion. For those with that kind of ideology, there is a whole wide world out there for you to live in. I've found when I get tired of my house, I move.

Wrong thread?

 

[WelshBloke]

He says that nobody is suggesting banning all guns, so that means he only wants to ban some guns. Then he points out that you can even get a shotgun in the UK, which I assume he feels is a much better situation than what the US currently has.

Then I went on and rambled a bit with arguments about why looking to ban "assault rifles" was not even close to the best way to try to reduce gun violence. And how any ban in the US is pretty much doomed to failure, or, at best, just limit the law-abiding in their exercising of the 2A rights.

So what did I say that you didn't understand?

I still have no idea what point of mine that you are addressing.

I haven't suggested banning any guns.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Do we? Look at half the shit Ted Nugent has said in his life, has anyone taken away his guns?

Ted Nugent is a disgrace to the human race. Just look at how he's attacking those Parkland kids who survived the shooting.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/31/politics/nra-member-calls-parkland-survivors-liars/index.html

 

[WelshBloke]

Ted Nugent is a disgrace to the human race.

He's a paedophile, a coward and a hypocrite. He's at that point where he doesn't need to worry about making himself look any worse now.

 

[compuwiz1]

Wrong thread?

No. How many guns, knives, hammers, rocks, bricks, chainsaws, or whatever, went out and killed people, of their own volition?
The blame should not be on the tool, but on the person who killed. The question should really be, how, as a society, are we taking responsibility for bringing up children who are not evil, hateful, murderous fucks?

Taking away rights from everyone is not the answer. Penalizing the majority for what a minor fraction of a percent did is not the answer.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No. How many guns, knives, hammers, rocks, bricks, chainsaws, or whatever, went out and killed people, of their own volition?
The blame should not be on the tool, but on the person who killed. The question should really be, how, as a society, are we taking responsibility for bringing up children who are not evil, hateful, murderous fucks?

Taking away rights from everyone is not the answer. Penalizing the majority for what a minor fraction of a percent did is not the answer.

See, this guy makes the case for approaching the situation from a mental health perspective.

Let's roll it up with universal healthcare and start vetting people and confirm they're responsible enough to own killing machines.

 

[Veliko]

No. How many guns, knives, hammers, rocks, bricks, chainsaws, or whatever, went out and killed people, of their own volition?
The blame should not be on the tool, but on the person who killed. The question should really be, how, as a society, are we taking responsibility for bringing up children who are not evil, hateful, murderous fucks?

Taking away rights from everyone is not the answer. Penalizing the majority for what a minor fraction of a percent did is not the answer.

The blame is always on the person.

Hence the person being jailed rather than the tool.

Now what point are you trying to make?

 

[compuwiz1]

See, this guy makes the case for approaching the situation from a mental health perspective.

Let's roll it up with universal healthcare and start vetting people and confirm they're responsible enough to own killing machines.

But wait...there's more. I'm not going to do everyone's homework for them, but of all the shooters in the past 20 years, how many would have been excluded from owning firearms with a 21 year old minimum age to purchase limit? If you're old enough to enlist in the military and die for your country, you're old enough to own a gun. If people think raising the age from 18 - 21 would make any appreciable difference, GTFOH. Another bullshit non solution. One or two guys, out of 350 million guns.

 

[ch33zw1z]

But wait...there's more. I'm not going to do everyone's homework for them, but of all the shooters in the past 20 years, how many would have been excluded from owning firearms with a 21 year old minimum age to purchase limit? If you're old enough to enlist in the military and die for your country, you're old enough to own a gun. If people think raising the age from 18 - 21 would make any appreciable difference, GTFOH. Another bullshit non solution. One or two guys, out of 350 million guns.

One or two guys? Lol....and the majority Americans don't own guns...

Your point stands. If you aren't going to blame the guns, because they don't fire themselves, humans are the variable in the situation. Which is accurate, and must be focused on more intensely.

 

[compuwiz1]

One or two guys? Lol....and the majority Americans don't own guns...

Your point stands. If you aren't going to blame the guns, because they don't fire themselves, humans are the variable in the situation. Which is accurate, and must be focused on more intensely.

Bingo! You're not an idiot. I'm reminded of the old cowboy joke, where he got shit on his wiener. He was looking for love in all the wrong places. I really feel people are emotional and are blaming all the wrong things, not looking for love (solutions) in all the right places. We have decayed, as a society. Something in the psyche is making people do these things.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Bingo! You're not an idiot. I'm reminded of the old cowboy joke, where he got shit on his wiener. He was looking for love in all the wrong places. I really feel people are emotional and are blaming all the wrong things, not looking for love (solutions) in all the right places. We have decayed, as a society. Something in the psyche is making people do these things.

People are emotional. We're not robots. It's the same reason people with mental health issues should be more rigorously vetted before attaining firearms. Increasing the age that people can attain firearms can help to some degree, but I'm skeptical how effective it will be.

Now, you can go argue your point with others in the thread who dont agree with mental health being an angle to approach from...

 

[compuwiz1]

People are emotional. We're not robots. It's the same reason people with mental health issues should be more rigorously vetted before attaining firearms. Increasing the age that people can attain firearms can help to some degree, but I'm skeptical how effective it will be.

Now, you can go argue your point with others in the thread who dont agree with mental health being an angle to approach from...

Yep. Agreed. I'd also add that abuse in the home, or elsewhere are factors, including bullying. My dad and I used to have anti-bullying classes in our back yard. It was him teaching me self defense and some other things about why they felt they could do it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yep. Agreed. I'd also add that abuse in the home, or elsewhere are factors, including bullying.

Sure. I'll add this tidbit. Schools nowadays are all about anti-bullying, and what it really ends up being is targets of bullying remain the same. The kids with social problems, learning disabilities....And still bullied by the same crew, jocks and popular kids. Except, the bullies have the ability and tact to be convincing in their own defense, while being devious and subtle when they bully. So the not-so-cool kid finally snaps and is labeled the bully because they lack tact, subtlety, and can't defend themselves with any bit of confidence.

School employees have over stretched, overworked, lacking either the ability or desire to address the issues head on, constantly cleaning up the mess in a reactive environment.

 

[fskimospy]

But we could march for change in hospitals that would at least put a dent in the number of people they kill, no? We don't have to ban them outright, just pass a few "common sense" regulations. Think of the patients that have a right to live free of the fear of medical malpractice!

What common sense medical malpractice regulations would you like to pass and why? I’m sure hospitals and regulators would love to know as hospitals are now penalized for high readmission rates under the ACA as that’s indicative of medical error.

This is a very, very dumb analogy and it’s not the first time it’s been tried. Usually people try cars though instead of hospitals. In the end the answer is simple: cars and hospitals provide tangible benefits for society, that’s why we accept a cost from them. Private ownership of guns does not outside of entertainment. (Owning one makes you less safe)

 

[Muse]

If you do manage to disarm everyone, and keep illegal weapons from flooding into the country, and keep folks from making guns in basement workshops, what do you do about the resulting sword violence? It's not like violent criminals without a gun will suddenly embrace lawfulness.

If all we have is sword maniacs to deal with I think we can handle that. Bring on the kendo, etc. There's a good reason the Japanese are nostalgic for the days of the samurai sword.

And the illegal guns, homemade, etc.? What in the world would someone want to do with them if they are nothing but a ticket to prison? It would take a while but it would sink in by and by, kiss the bullet goodbye!

 

[Muse]

Join the NRA!
https://home.nra.org/

Me, it's utterly anathema. I detest them, get a clue.

 

[ondma]

No. How many guns, knives, hammers, rocks, bricks, chainsaws, or whatever, went out and killed people, of their own volition?
The blame should not be on the tool, but on the person who killed. The question should really be, how, as a society, are we taking responsibility for bringing up children who are not evil, hateful, murderous fucks?

Taking away rights from everyone is not the answer. Penalizing the majority for what a minor fraction of a percent did is not the answer.

I am so incredibly sick of this fallacious argument. Yes, the responsibility ultimately rests with the user, but the availability (especially of assault rifles) and obsession with guns makes the destruction far easier and more extensive. Do you think the Parkland shooter could have gone into the school and killed 17 people with a rock?

Now I do not believe we need to repeal the second amendment. All we need to do is realize that it was written by human beings in a time when living conditions and technology were very different, and have some flexibility in its interpretation. It was written in a time when people needed to hunt for food and defend themselves and their property from external threats. The writers could not possibly have foreseen the explosion of military grade automatic weapons going into the hands of private citizens.

 

[fskimospy]

If all we have is sword maniacs to deal with I think we can handle that. Bring on the kendo, etc. There's a good reason the Japanese are nostalgic for the days of the samurai sword.

And the illegal guns, homemade, etc.? What in the world would someone want to do with them if they are nothing but a ticket to prison? It would take a while but it would sink in by and by, kiss the bullet goodbye!

Not sure how many times this has to be posted to show how dumb that argument is:

https://www.theonion.com/you-take-away-guns-and-someone-s-just-gonna-invent-ma-1819585008

You Take Away Guns, And Someone’s Just Gonna Invent, Manufacture, And Use A High-Powered Knife Launcher

 

[ivwshane]

You sure like to lie a lot.

How do you propose to accomplish your gun ban, even a partial one? I say it's in all practicality impossible.

Typical gun nut straw man. My post had nothing to do with banning guns but rather was about the interpretation of the constitution. Nice try though.

Sword violence aside, how will banning one weapon (assuming it was even possible) get criminally violent people to play nice? I say it won't. So, eventually folks will be screaming to ban all kinds of weapons because they refuse to blame the criminal and, instead, think banning the tool will make evil go away.

Ah the old slippery slope argument mixed with a red herring. The goal has never been to make violent criminals play nice, the goal was to limit the tools available to them that makes killing people easier. No one thinks any one thing will make evil go away.

Anyone with domestic violence charges against them is already banned from purchasing a gun. It's a questioned asked right on the FBI NCIC background check application. I'm all for stripping folks of their 2A rights, but only if it is done via the courts and due process. Due process is one of the fundamental rights citizens enjoy in this country.

That is incorrect. You are only penalized if the violence happened between a spouse. Boyfriends and stalkers don't count. Nor does federal law require them to turn in their guns. The military itself rarely even specifies or uses the term domestic abuse when it reports it so it gets overlooked during background checks.

Asking for a mental health evaluation to buy a gun is a violation of a citizen's right to due process, and possibly their privacy as well. We can't let doctors decide if someone can or cannot exercise their 2A right. That's a job for our courts. Not to mention we can't put undue burdens on someone exercising their Constitutional rights, and I think requiring a mental health evaluation is far beyond a reasonable requirement.

Fantastic, let's require gun buyers to get metal health checks and then they have to wait for the courts to decide whether or not they are worthy of having a gun. Undue burden? Yeah, I knew you weren't for mental health checks being used for disqualification of having guns, just more dishonesty from you.

Lastly, I don't have to concede or agree with ideas I believe are worthless at actually solving the gun violence crisis. I don't believe there is any plan that will stop motivated criminals/sick/evil folks from getting guns without breaking the 2A and changing what we currently think of as a free society in the US. Banning and rounding up all the guns is the only thing I can think of that would work. If you can figure out how to accomplish that then I am all ears.

Lol I'm sure you support a gun confiscation plan until one actually comes out and I'm sure you won't be screaming, "undue burden" and, "constitutional rights". You've already lied about supporting mental health when explained what would need to happen and I'm sure you'll lie again.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am so incredibly sick of this fallacious argument. Yes, the responsibility ultimately rests with the user, but the availability (especially of assault rifles) and obsession with guns makes the destruction far easier and more extensive. Do you think the Parkland shooter could have gone into the school and killed 17 people with a rock?

Now I do not believe we need to repeal the second amendment. All we need to do is realize that it was written by human beings in a time when living conditions and technology were very different, and have some flexibility in its interpretation. It was written in a time when people needed to hunt for food and defend themselves and their property from external threats. The writers could not possibly have foreseen the explosion of military grade automatic weapons going into the hands of private citizens.

The revolutionary wannabee ammosexual firepower freaks see it differently.

 

[Paladin3]

I am so incredibly sick of this fallacious argument. Yes, the responsibility ultimately rests with the user, but the availability (especially of assault rifles) and obsession with guns makes the destruction far easier and more extensive. Do you think the Parkland shooter could have gone into the school and killed 17 people with a rock?

Now I do not believe we need to repeal the second amendment. All we need to do is realize that it was written by human beings in a time when living conditions and technology were very different, and have some flexibility in its interpretation. It was written in a time when people needed to hunt for food and defend themselves and their property from external threats. The writers could not possibly have foreseen the explosion of military grade automatic weapons going into the hands of private citizens.

I guess you missed this: http://checkyourfact.com/2018/02/20/fact-check-gun-crime-handguns-rifles/

"Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders than rifles were in 2016, according to the UCR data. Handguns killed nine times as many victims as rifles, shotguns, and other guns did combined. The type of firearm used was unknown for about 28 percent of all firearm murders.
Firearms are the most common murder weapon, accounting for over half of the murders each year from 2007 to 2016. The FBI’s UCR shows that 11,004 of the 15,070 murders in 2016 were committed with firearms."

So the AR-15 platform of rifles, being a small subset of all long guns, is only responsible for a small fraction of gun murders. I refuse to believe anyone who is crying to ban them will stop if we gun owners give them up. The last assault weapons ban did NOTHING to deter crime. What will you want to ban next?

And stop calling the AR-15 full automatic. It's only available as a semi-automatic gun in the civilian configuration. Fully automatic weapons are hard to get and you must apply for special permits and pay extra fees. The AR-15 is not a machine gun either.

 

[Paladin3]

What common sense medical malpractice regulations would you like to pass and why? I’m sure hospitals and regulators would love to know as hospitals are now penalized for high readmission rates under the ACA as that’s indicative of medical error.

This is a very, very dumb analogy and it’s not the first time it’s been tried. Usually people try cars though instead of hospitals. In the end the answer is simple: cars and hospitals provide tangible benefits for society, that’s why we accept a cost from them. Private ownership of guns does not outside of entertainment. (Owning one makes you less safe)

My post was sarcasm. Guess I should have included the /s.

 

[Paladin3]

See, this guy makes the case for approaching the situation from a mental health perspective.

Let's roll it up with universal healthcare and start vetting people and confirm they're responsible enough to own killing machines.

I support universal healthcare and overall healthcare reform. I don't understand why a good portion of our country cares so little for our sick and poor.

I also support better reporting of individuals who have had their 2A rights removed due to mental health issues and/or criminal behavior. I do not support violating due process and putting my 2A rights in the hands of a doctor. That's what courts are for.

I think we all need to take responsibility and get help for those we love who may be exhibiting mental health, drug abuse or anger/criminal behavior. Too often someone starts shooting and people knew they were in distress before it happened.

Bullying needs to be addressed. We need students to be empowered to speak out against bullies and report them. Individual bullies need to be held accountable, including their parents who raised them. I think a lot of bullying behavior is learned. We need to stop blaming teachers and administrators for the bad conduct of students. Cull those students from the system if necessary. Let the parents pay for private school if they can't teach their children to play well with others.

I also think we need to parent better, have fewer kids raising kids, and teach our children to love and respect one another. I would love to see more programs for young parents and at risk youth. We seem more than willing to execute them once they are 18, but do very little in the way of addressing criminal behavior before that.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You dont think if a doctor evaluation deemed you unfit that the courts wouldn't be involved? I'm not sure why you think that.

Earlier in the thread another poster and I had a couple replies to each other, where's it's obvious that we k ow this is new angle to work the problem from, and details are to be worked out.

 

[Paladin3]

You dont think if a doctor evaluation deemed you unfit that the courts wouldn't be involved? I'm not sure why you think that.

Earlier in the thread another poster and I had a couple replies to each other, where's it's obvious that we k ow this is new angle to work the problem from, and details are to be worked out.

We already have the ability via state laws that allow us to order emergency or involuntary commitment with reasonable cause. It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals if the criteria as provided for in the law is met. There must be evidence that the person possibly is a danger to themselves or others. If found mentally ill enough to possibly warrant losing their 2A rights they go before a judge and are affording due process in a court of law. We don't need any new laws for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment_internationally#United_States

"State law governs involuntary commitment, and procedures vary from state to state. In some jurisdictions, laws regarding the commitment of juveniles may vary, with what is the de facto involuntary commitment of a juvenile perhaps de jure defined as "voluntary" if his parents agree, though he may still have a right to protest and attempt to get released. However, there is a body of case law governing the civil commitment of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment through Supreme Court rulings beginning in 1975 with the ruling that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rightsin O'Connor v. Donaldson. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must exhibit behavior that poses a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only, and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the U.S.[17] In the U.S. the specifics of the relevant statutes vary from state to state.[18]

In 1979, Addington v. Texas set the bar for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence".[19]"

What I object to, and you should to, is ordering folks to undergo a psychiatric exam with no probable cause before they can exercise their 2A rights. If we allow that it would be almost immediately challenged in court as unconstitutional. Due process is one of our fundamental rights in the country, as is being innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention our privacy rights that it would violate. Nobody would stand for having that burden placed on folks exercising any other Constitutional rights, but for the 2A is okay?

We can't toss the baby out with the bath water to make ourselves feel safer. And if you understand all of this, then what are you actually proposing?