The Second Amendment must go

[michal1980]

So what your saving is you found a place to save some federal $$$.

 

[mikeymikec]

The idea is not to get rid of the second amendment but regulate it vigorously. Can't let idiots get guns.

"You want a gun?"
"Yes"
"Test complete; you're an idiot"

 

[NAC4EV]

+1



On a side note, NAC4EV should really rethink his choice of avatar, apparently.

U got that, Go to the front of the class.

 

[glenn1]

"You want a gun?"
"Yes"
"Test complete; you're an idiot"

Someone from the country that bans carrying cutlery in public probably isn't the best judge for idiocy. Or for judging threats, unless you're deathly afraid of a mass killing by someone using a fish deboner or deadly instrument of cheddar cheese slicing.

 

[TechBoyJK]

The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns.

We are one nation, forever f*cked by the NRA and an outdated and dangerous read of the Constitution. Let's fix it.

Call me naïve or any number of other things, but my suggestion is no more naïve than most of the arguments that gun advocates trot out on a daily basis. It’s also no more naïve than thinking that we’ll solve our gun problem with half measures or, even worse, doing nothing.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/04/the_second_amendment_must_go_we_ban_lawn_darts_its_time_to_ban_guns/

Your approach equals all out civil war in which the gun owners win.

 

[mikeymikec]

Someone from the country that bans carrying cutlery in public probably isn't the best judge for idiocy. Or for judging threats, unless you're deathly afraid of a mass killing by someone using a fish deboner or deadly instrument of cheddar cheese slicing.

Yes, but on the other hand we don't have mass killings making the news on approximately a monthly basis.

Which culture would you prefer to live in, one where you feel the need to lobby against practices that directly contribute to regular mass killings in the general population, or the other where you feel the need to lobby for your right to transport your fish deboner in peace?

 

[brianmanahan]

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/04/the_second_amendment_must_go_we_ban_lawn_darts_its_time_to_ban_guns

Thread crapping gif says nothing, adds nothing.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[brianmanahan]

also, why did OP post a URL in a code element? nobody can click it that way.

 

[1prophet]

While we are proposing eliminating amendments in order to protect our "safe spaces" get rid of this one too,

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


After all if you have nothing to hide and aren't doing anything illegal like possessing guns you have nothing to worry about,

besides it will make it easier for law enforcement to round up all those potential terrorists who refuse to turn in their now banned guns.

 

[-slash-]

Yes, but on the other hand we don't have mass killings making the news on approximately a monthly basis.

Which culture would you prefer to live in, one where you feel the need to lobby against practices that directly contribute to regular mass killings in the general population, or lobby for your right to transport your fish deboner in peace?

How does lobbying for gun laws to restrict lawful gun owners from owning guns contribute directly to reducing mass shootings be people illegally owning guns already?

Hint, it doesnt. Laws only work for those willing to obey them. I'd wager a guess that the guy killing people doesn't give two shits about gun laws.

 

[Svnla]

I don't drink and there are too much deaths/damages from DUIs, let ban all alcohol.

Oh wait, we did try that before WWII, did not work.

Same for 2A.

Isn't CA one of the most restrictive state for guns? Same for City of Chicago. Let ask how those gang members that killed each other and innocent bystanders almost daily about how they follow the law, eh?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Ban cars. Tens of thousands of people die because of them every year.
BTW, from what I can find, 2/3's of the number in the graph were suicides.

Yep, idiots like the OP conveniently ignore that little fact.

 

[momeNt]

Guys,

The amendments were put in place to protect from GOVERNMENT TYRANNY!

This insane little fact that government either didn't tell us about, or didn't have the foresight to realize, is that preventing government tyranny, opens the door to civilian (terrorist) tyranny.

We are under siege from crazy people with guns, terrorists with guns, and abusive people with foul mouths harming people in unspeakable ways with their facebook and twitter accounts. The 1st and 2nd amendments are actually protecting the civilian tyrannists because government has been hamstrung.

Repeal amendments now, free our government, and at the same time free our people. We need this badly, and we need it now.

 

[SlowSpyder]

That graph adds int the 20000+ suicides in which a gun was used. That's stupid.

 

[cbrunny]

It is possible to remove the 2nd amendment without actually adding legal restrictions on guns. The 2nd amendment is a protection, not a restriction.

 

[mikeymikec]

How does lobbying for gun laws to restrict lawful gun owners from owning guns contribute directly to reducing mass shootings be people illegally owning guns already?

Hint, it doesnt. Laws only work for those willing to obey them. I'd wager a guess that the guy killing people doesn't give two shits about gun laws.

I'm not sure why you're responding to me with this question since I haven't actually advocated any particular approach on this thread. glenn1 responded to a joke I made, basically saying how idiotic things are in the UK, so I responded with the post you quoted.

If you want to know my opinion on gun ownership in the US, I think it's idiotic that you guys made it this far while dragging along an interpretation of the law that should have ended at least a century ago. However, with the apparent extent of gun ownership (legal and otherwise), as someone else on this thread already said "the cat's out of the bag", and furthermore given the emotionally charged responses to the OP, I think a lot of Americans think of their firearms as something between a "symbol of freedom" (even to the point that they think the government would allow itself to be overthrown in such a fashion!) and their penis. Hopefully that attitude will wear off over time, once it does then perhaps gun laws can be steadily tightened and supply dwindles to an extent that's typical of most developed countries. That process would still probably take a lifetime once public opinion has mostly come around to the idea, but perhaps a long-term commitment (in some way that when made can't be broken, perhaps cross-party agreement and/or a referendum) over a fixed time period is what's needed, as opposed to a haphazard approach where gun ownership rights and randomly snipped here and there and people don't know what to expect with it; is there still going to be say a gang-firearms-violence problem when a vital part of gun control gets passed, making law-abiders vulnerable, for example.

 

[-slash-]

That graph adds int the 20000+ suicides in which a gun was used. That's stupid.

But if they didn't have a gun they wouldn't have committed suicide:thumbsup:

 

[Joepublic2]

So what your saving is you found a place to save some federal $$$.

To be fair, when a gun kills somebody it may be performing one of its functions as a tool. When a car kills somebody, it's almost always unintentional. There's far dumber things to spend money on than trying to bring vehicular related deaths as close to zero as possible.

 

[glenn1]

Yes, but on the other hand we don't have mass killings making the news on approximately a monthly basis.

Which culture would you prefer to live in, one where you feel the need to lobby against practices that directly contribute to regular mass killings in the general population, or the other where you feel the need to lobby for your right to transport your fish deboner in peace?

The one with fewer stupid restrictions on rights since mass shooting deaths are statistically insignificant. From 2000-2014 the U.S. had 133 mass shootings with 487 dead. That's 34 annually, in a country of roughly 310 million. So in a given year my risk is 0.00109%. For context, drowning deaths were 1,400 times more common in the U.S. And it's not even in the Top 40 causes of death.

 

[Genx87]

Always a village idiot somewhere willing to show their face.

 

[-slash-]

Yes, but on the other hand we don't have mass killings making the news on approximately a monthly basis.

Which culture would you prefer to live in, one where you feel the need to lobby against practices that directly contribute to regular mass killings in the general population, or the other where you feel the need to lobby for your right to transport your fish deboner in peace?

I'm not sure why you're responding to me with this question since I haven't actually advocated any particular approach on this thread. glenn1 responded to a joke I made, basically saying how idiotic things are in the UK, so I responded with the post you quoted.

If you want to know my opinion on gun ownership in the US, I think it's idiotic that you guys made it this far while dragging along an interpretation of the law that should have ended at least a century ago. However, with the apparent extent of gun ownership (legal and otherwise), as someone else on this thread already said "the cat's out of the bag", and furthermore given the emotionally charged responses to the OP, I think a lot of Americans think of their firearms as something between a "symbol of freedom" (even to the point that they think the government would allow itself to be overthrown in such a fashion!) and their penis. Hopefully that attitude will wear off over time, once it does then perhaps gun laws can be steadily tightened and supply dwindles to an extent that's typical of most developed countries. That process would still probably take a lifetime once public opinion has mostly come around to the idea, but perhaps a long-term commitment (in some way that when made can't be broken, perhaps cross-party agreement and/or a referendum) over a fixed time period is what's needed, as opposed to a haphazard approach where gun ownership rights and randomly snipped here and there and people don't know what to expect with it; is there still going to be say a gang-firearms-violence problem when a vital part of gun control gets passed, making law-abiders vulnerable, for example.

You clearly advocated a stance that lobbying to protect gun laws directly correlates to contributing to mass shootings, hence the response.

 

[SlowSpyder]

But if they didn't have a gun they wouldn't have committed suicide:thumbsup:

I read a story where a guy drank Drano to kill himself. The obvious answer is to tightly regulate if not outright ban all drain cleaners and hazardous household chemicals. ()

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Really? We can't even get get past the regulation part even though it is the third word in the amendment.

Correct. At present, there are absolutely no regulations on firearms. Zilch, zero, nada.

 

[Joepublic2]

Yes, but on the other hand we don't have mass killings making the news on approximately a monthly basis.

Which culture would you prefer to live in, one where you feel the need to lobby against practices that directly contribute to regular mass killings in the general population, or the other where you feel the need to lobby for your right to transport your fish deboner in peace?

I'd rather live in the culture that gives me the best chance of being able to successfully defend myself my friends or my family should the need arise. Of course I don't have the mindset of an infantilized prole so YMMV.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

To be fair, when a gun kills somebody it may be performing one of its functions as a tool. When a car kills somebody, it's almost always unintentional. There's far dumber things to spend money on than trying to bring vehicular related deaths as close to zero as possible.

Right now, murdering someone with a gun will most likely get you at least decades in prison, if not life or the death penalty. Running someone over while DUI or texting will get you a few years in prison, max. We're already close to capping out punishments on murder save for public flogging, torture, and other constitutionally illegal methods. Not so for vehicular deaths.