Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[soulcougher73]

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 If the 2nd were to be repealed, what is to guarantee that the 1st, 4th and others wouldn't be?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.

 

[soulcougher73]

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.

 

[IJTSSG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=k6Nlb_qRoeg

Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[compuwiz1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=k6Nlb_qRoeg

Nothing else needs to be said.

Most here won't watch that video. It threatens their bubbly narrative. People guard their paradigms with their blankies and hot cocoa, of course.

 

[jpeyton]

It shouldn't be repealed, and maybe 1 out of 100 Democrats are actually asking for it to be repealed (there are a higher percentage of Republicans who still want to see Obama's birth certificate).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]

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]

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.

 

[Skel]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jhhnn]

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]

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?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'.

 

[Kneedragger]

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]

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]

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.

The Catholic Church used the printing press, which was invented for mass producing the Gutenberg Bible in 1436, to disseminate information to their congregations and the surrounding communities.
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/educator/modules/gutenberg/books/legacy/

 

[zinfamous]

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.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

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.

 

[nickqt]

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]

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]

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