What part of "well regulated" do the 2nd Amendment crazies find so hard to understand ?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Quizzical · 46-50, M
The main problem is that technology advanced far faster than the ability of either law or society to deal with it...
When the second amendment was drafted the fastest reload speed for a firearm was one round every 15-20 seconds.
We now have weapons like the AK-47 which can fire approximately 200 rounds in that same amount of time.
The amendment HAS to be looked at to take those technological advancements into account. You cannot operate a law that is 227 years old that deals with technology and still expect it to be relevant today...
When the second amendment was drafted the fastest reload speed for a firearm was one round every 15-20 seconds.
We now have weapons like the AK-47 which can fire approximately 200 rounds in that same amount of time.
The amendment HAS to be looked at to take those technological advancements into account. You cannot operate a law that is 227 years old that deals with technology and still expect it to be relevant today...
AnnieMal · F
The technology was foreseen. Period. Do your own research. Just because you don't like that I didn't type it out and used a meme, doesn't mean that it is wrong.
Quizzical · 46-50, M
@AnnieMal It is wrong though, lol.
You are trying to compare a Puckle Gun, a fixed position, mounted proto-machinegun to an AK-47 that is a lightweight, assault rifle which fires sixty-six times faster and say that 227 years ago they foresaw the development of the AK-47 from the Puckle Gun...
You are talking out of your hat, lol
You are trying to compare a Puckle Gun, a fixed position, mounted proto-machinegun to an AK-47 that is a lightweight, assault rifle which fires sixty-six times faster and say that 227 years ago they foresaw the development of the AK-47 from the Puckle Gun...
You are talking out of your hat, lol
AnnieMal · F
I'm not comparing the firearms as being exactly alike, there is something similar between the two, it's called TECHNOLOGY and function. If you can't understand that, there's no point in any further discussion, because you either don't understand firearms or you just don't want to admit being wrong. You said the technology wasn't foreseen, well obviously it was.
Quizzical · 46-50, M
@AnnieMal Actually, I didn't say anything about it being forseen... You said that.
I am saying that the amendment needs to be updated to take into account current technology.
However, as you mentioned it, it WAS impossible to forsee... Hell Alfred Nobel created dynamite and thought it was the most destructive force man was capable of... Even HE didn't see nuclear weapons coming.
Even fifty years ago we had no idea that we would all be carrying around devices in our pockets which would have more computational power than the 'super-computers' they used to get man to the moon.
To claim that 227 years ago the American government foresaw and took into account today's technology is fucking laughable. You are making a fool of yourself by believing otherwise.
Jesus, that's why legislation HAS reviews and amendments... To take things into account in society that no-one COULD foresee!
I get it, you're a gun nut... You don't want no big bad governmemt taking away your toys, even at the expense of children's lives.
That's fair enough... I don't live in America and I don't really care if you keep your guns or not. But the stance you are taking would indicate an all-knowing, all-seeing, prophetic government that never EVER had to change anything, and that's frankly a stupid and childish view.
I am saying that the amendment needs to be updated to take into account current technology.
However, as you mentioned it, it WAS impossible to forsee... Hell Alfred Nobel created dynamite and thought it was the most destructive force man was capable of... Even HE didn't see nuclear weapons coming.
Even fifty years ago we had no idea that we would all be carrying around devices in our pockets which would have more computational power than the 'super-computers' they used to get man to the moon.
To claim that 227 years ago the American government foresaw and took into account today's technology is fucking laughable. You are making a fool of yourself by believing otherwise.
Jesus, that's why legislation HAS reviews and amendments... To take things into account in society that no-one COULD foresee!
I get it, you're a gun nut... You don't want no big bad governmemt taking away your toys, even at the expense of children's lives.
That's fair enough... I don't live in America and I don't really care if you keep your guns or not. But the stance you are taking would indicate an all-knowing, all-seeing, prophetic government that never EVER had to change anything, and that's frankly a stupid and childish view.
AnnieMal · F
Well we could complain to the courts that the 2nd amendment is not relevant because of the advanced technology and we could hope that they don't think the 1st isn't relevant anymore either because computers & cell phones weren't around during the creation of our Constitutional rights. (We would probably be better off using quill and parchment than a laptop anyway.😊) I'm Swiss and with all of the guns there, they aren't an issue, and here in the US I see it as a BIG people problem, not the guns.
AnnieMal · F
Getting the states to ratify it would not happen today, nor in the near future.
AnnieMal · F
That has no bearing on amending the Constitution in the long run. Each state would have to vote for it and there is no way the southern, southwestern, or mid American states would go for it.
It's not about the guns anyway. It a societal issue. Coming from the 3rd largest per capita country in gun ownership where we don't have the problems they have here, it is easy to see where the problem is. They could totally ban all of the guns and the crime rate would only climb.
It's not about the guns anyway. It a societal issue. Coming from the 3rd largest per capita country in gun ownership where we don't have the problems they have here, it is easy to see where the problem is. They could totally ban all of the guns and the crime rate would only climb.
Quizzical · 46-50, M
@AnnieMal How would the crime rate climb?
A few months ago my girlfriend who lives in America got into a little prang with another driver, no major damage was done, it was no more than a scrape really.
However, the guy jumped out of his car swearing and 'cussing', and pulled a gun on my GF and her mother... They could have both been shot, and all because of a little bump.
His first reaction was to reach for his weapon.
If it wasn't there then maybe he might have actually thought about things, checked the damage, and realised it was a lot of fuss over nothing.
Guns themselves are no more inherently dangerous than a knife, a ball, or a coffee mug. You can use all of them to kill someone if you really want to. Guns just makes it a hell of a lot easier...
A few months ago my girlfriend who lives in America got into a little prang with another driver, no major damage was done, it was no more than a scrape really.
However, the guy jumped out of his car swearing and 'cussing', and pulled a gun on my GF and her mother... They could have both been shot, and all because of a little bump.
His first reaction was to reach for his weapon.
If it wasn't there then maybe he might have actually thought about things, checked the damage, and realised it was a lot of fuss over nothing.
Guns themselves are no more inherently dangerous than a knife, a ball, or a coffee mug. You can use all of them to kill someone if you really want to. Guns just makes it a hell of a lot easier...
AnnieMal · F
He could've jumped out with a tire iron too, but without debating the tool he used, here's a big problem here... He definitely broke the law! In fact quite a few laws in his actions. Did he have or need a license. Did he get arrested for attempted assault, or for brandishing (unlawful display/use)of a firearm? Did they prosecute him? Did he get sent to prison where he belongs? Did he lose his gun rights/license? Wanna bet no? I bet he wasn't a licensed gun owner too. Yep, big problem.
There are places in this big country that I wouldn't venture into unless I was legally armed. It's pretty lawless in some cities, and to deny the opportunity to defend yourself is just wrong.
There are places in this big country that I wouldn't venture into unless I was legally armed. It's pretty lawless in some cities, and to deny the opportunity to defend yourself is just wrong.
AnnieMal · F
What was to stop him from coming to the car?... A gun if your girlfriend was carrying, or if I would have been there. I'll not go defenseless here.
The criminals don't care one bit about the laws. None of the laws mean anything to them and gun laws mean even less. They really need to fix the court system. That's why I said the crime rate would rise if guns were banned. The criminals would keep their guns, the courts would continue doing nothing, and considering the plethora of firearms here the supply is almost unlimited on the black market, and if the supply did dry up, they would smuggle them in across the porous borders. Lots of things that could be fixed here go unchanged all because of the time wasted on the gun grab approach to solving the illegal use and crime issue.
The criminals don't care one bit about the laws. None of the laws mean anything to them and gun laws mean even less. They really need to fix the court system. That's why I said the crime rate would rise if guns were banned. The criminals would keep their guns, the courts would continue doing nothing, and considering the plethora of firearms here the supply is almost unlimited on the black market, and if the supply did dry up, they would smuggle them in across the porous borders. Lots of things that could be fixed here go unchanged all because of the time wasted on the gun grab approach to solving the illegal use and crime issue.