Top | Newest First | Oldest First
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
@IstillmissEP Because?
Inquisator · M
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
@Qwerty14 No, that's the truth from me. I feel better knowing I can truly defend myself. I've never been someone that cares about lives but if I did I'd assure you this protects the future of millions of people.
frequentlyme · 70-79, M
I can't speak for anyone but myself; but I think there is a widespread paranoia about the government taking over by force, or a foreign force invading our country. Those who believe in that sort of thing think they and their fellow Rambo types will fight them off and save the day. Yah, I'm sort of thinking that's balderdash.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
frequentlyme · 70-79, M
@IstillmissEP "Can't" is a big word. Of course it could, anything could happen. I spoke to rational thought, and the actions of rational people. I also said it was my perspective. Your mileage may differ,
hunkalove · 61-69, M
The reason we have the 2nd Amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government. And look how the brave citizens of Vietnam and countries in the Middle East have stood up to our government.
@hunkalove You know millions have died right? Like saying "these countries have stood up to our government" is a bit off base. Vietnam had bad press and was a shit show true but the middle East has been completely devastated by the US. If the US used their full force very little would be left of any of these countries.
Tracos · 51-55, M
I dont think so... the spirit of armed civilians was to organize militia to defend against the brits (or any other colonial force at that time) before a standing army was created to defend the entire US... which with current military capabilities does not hold anymore
if the argument is to defend against a corrupt government.... I actually think its perpendicular to the core concept of democracy to assume that an elected government is not working to the extent that civilians must be prepared to defend themselves against their duly elected representatives...
if the argument is to defend against a corrupt government.... I actually think its perpendicular to the core concept of democracy to assume that an elected government is not working to the extent that civilians must be prepared to defend themselves against their duly elected representatives...
Zaphod42 · 46-50, M
Haha! Good point. I remember there used to be this "militia" in Arkansas not far from where we lived that crossed too far over the line with racism and illegal firearms. The ATF made short work of them in spite of their bunkers and guns.
On the other hand I don't see the harm in allowing citizens to own hunting rifles, shot guns and side arms provided proper background checks and firearms safety training has been completed. I also don't see why an average citizen should have or would need an assault rifle.
On the other hand I don't see the harm in allowing citizens to own hunting rifles, shot guns and side arms provided proper background checks and firearms safety training has been completed. I also don't see why an average citizen should have or would need an assault rifle.
Pherick · 41-45, M
From the extra writing from Founding Fathers around the time of the 2nd Amendment, it seems like their idea was for the states to maintain a strong militia in order to be able to defend themselves against a government that had gone too far.
I have never seen any writings that imply they thought every individual should be able to arm themselves however they saw fit.
"A well-regulated Militia" are the first 4 words for a reason.
In current times, individuals armed with civilian weapons would stand no chance against a true military force.
I have never seen any writings that imply they thought every individual should be able to arm themselves however they saw fit.
"A well-regulated Militia" are the first 4 words for a reason.
In current times, individuals armed with civilian weapons would stand no chance against a true military force.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Pherick Bingo. The 2nd Amendment applied to the right for the states to maintain strong militias. In fact, the extrapolation of the right to bear arms to individuals didn't occur until the DC v. Heller Supreme Court case in 2008, and that was a split decision by a 5-4 vote. It could have easily gone the other way. Even under Heller, there is no absolute right to own any firearm on the market. Free speech is protected, but you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Banning assault weapons, for example, would not be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment, should it be done to prevent recurring mass murders.
To get back to the original poster, yes, the 2nd Amendment is still applicable, and the Supreme Court has affirmed its applicability to private citizens, but the right to own a firearm is not absolute.
To get back to the original poster, yes, the 2nd Amendment is still applicable, and the Supreme Court has affirmed its applicability to private citizens, but the right to own a firearm is not absolute.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
It is the law and made difficult to change on purpose so unless you are willing to throw away the rule of law the answer is yes it really applies. It does not mean anyone gets anything they want but it means that you won't be collecting all the guns.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Subsumedpat The 2nd Amendment itself won't be changed, because that would require a 3/4 majority of the states, but the interpretation of the amendment can and has been changed by the Supreme Court over time. Most recently this occurred in 2008, when the Court decided the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals in the DC v. Heller case, decided by a 5-4 decision. A later Court could decide just the opposite. In any event, no one has advocated collecting all guns. That would be silly and impossible.
katielass · F
After odumbo and you're still dumb enough to ask such a question? It's even more important now.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
@FelixLegion Yeah lawful sales aren't the problem but a lot of sales aren't lawful. You need to earn a licence, have the background checks, have registration, have training, etc on all sales. It shouldnt be harder to drive a car legally than own a gun.
Just so you know I'm not a liberal. I don't care about the Democrats and their opinions because they'll probably just go with what makes them more money.
Lastly I agree schooling, justice and mental health are big issues but all countries have those issues and don't have high gun crime. You gotta look at what the US has that makes their problem unique and that is the ease of gun ownership.
Just so you know I'm not a liberal. I don't care about the Democrats and their opinions because they'll probably just go with what makes them more money.
Lastly I agree schooling, justice and mental health are big issues but all countries have those issues and don't have high gun crime. You gotta look at what the US has that makes their problem unique and that is the ease of gun ownership.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
frequentlyme · 70-79, M
Important? Hmmmm, hard question to deal with. Let's start with this question: Is the rule of the land, established by the Constitution and Amendments, important, and do they apply (apply meaning are they valid today) today? Yes, laws established by the Constitution are important, and the freedoms and restriction those laws afford us are vital.
Now, having said that, and saying I fully support the Constitution, I am not of the school of thought that says we need the 2nd Amendment as it was written and has been applied, not today anyway. Should we be able to purchase, within reasonable guidelines, firearms? Yes. Do we need to defend ourselves against our government? No. That's what the ballot is about. Do we (civilians) need to defend ourselves against a foreign government? No, that's what the military is for, and they are quite adequate in their capability to do so.
Could we (civilians) defend ourselves against our government (meaning the combined forces of all the branches of the military) even if we continue the 2nd Amendment as it is, and as it is applied? My answer to that is: Are you kidding me?!?! Not only no, but hell no we couldn't.
Now, having said that, and saying I fully support the Constitution, I am not of the school of thought that says we need the 2nd Amendment as it was written and has been applied, not today anyway. Should we be able to purchase, within reasonable guidelines, firearms? Yes. Do we need to defend ourselves against our government? No. That's what the ballot is about. Do we (civilians) need to defend ourselves against a foreign government? No, that's what the military is for, and they are quite adequate in their capability to do so.
Could we (civilians) defend ourselves against our government (meaning the combined forces of all the branches of the military) even if we continue the 2nd Amendment as it is, and as it is applied? My answer to that is: Are you kidding me?!?! Not only no, but hell no we couldn't.