The Second Amendment: A Quick Overview

[My99legend]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (U.S. Const., II)

In 1875, the Supreme Court had the very first case pertaining to the 2nd Amendment; U.S. v. Cruikshank. This case involved Cruikshank, who charged the that the KKK prevented African Americans from exercising their civil rights. In 1873, a white armed Democrat group attacked a group of black Republican freedmen (Justia). An estimated 100- 280 African Americans were killed. Federal charges were pressed against several white members under the Enforcement Act of 1870. This act prohibited two or more persons from conspiring to devest a person of his constitutional rights.

Among the charges presented to the Supreme Court was hindering of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment pertained that the right to bear arms should not be infringed upon by government. That is to say that federal government did not have the to power to punish a private individual; rather that “to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens (Thompson 10).” The Court declared therefore that the right to keep and bear arms, since not stated in the Constitution (rather in the Bill of Rights), it was not ‘dependent’ on the Constitution for its existence, and was a right independent of the Constitution (Halbrook 174). So, in conclusion for this case concerning the 2nd amendment; it is a right, but Congress does not see it as their responsibility to protect that right, simply that they shall not infringe upon it.

In 1886, the case of Presser v. Illinois came before the Supreme Court. This case concerned the power of states to restrict firearms. The Supreme Court decided "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States (Presser).” That is to say that although the National Government and Congress, cannot restrict firearms, states have the right to. But the state cannot prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms (Presser). So states have the right to limit, but not ban firearms.

United States v. Miller, 1939, involved the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. This act put a tax upon certain guns, and required the registration of shotguns and rifles with barrels less than 18” long, machineguns, firearm mufflers and silencers (Bureau). Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged with violation of the NFA, when they transported a double barrel 12-guage shotgun in interstate commerce (United). Miller and Layton argued that the NFA violated their 2nd amendment rights. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed, and dismissed the case saying, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'"

The case also involved a 12” shotgun, which being shorter than 18” requirement of the NFA, for registration, did not violate the act. But the Supreme Court reversed the district dissension, saying that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own military grade firearms. Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote that the procession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun is not required for a well-regulated militia, and therefore is not protected by the 2nd amendment (United). So the Court decided that since the gun was not part ordinary military equipment, it’s use cannot be contributed to common defense.

In 2007, the case of District of Columbia V. Heller was addressed. The District of Columbia declared a law concerning handguns. It stated that it was a crime to carry an unregistered gun, it prohibited registration of handguns; unless chief of police approves a 1-year issue, and required citizen to keep lawful handguns unloaded and with a trigger lock device. Heller filed that these laws were unconstitutional, since they restricted him from owning a firearm. The court ruled 5-4 that the ban was unconstitutional (District). They ruled that although a ban on registration is constitutional, a person must still be able to obtain a firearm. And finally, that guns keep in the home must be allowed to be functional. Since this ban was enacted under federal authority, it was decided that it violated the second amendment.

A landmark case was, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010. After the outcome of the Heller v. District of Columbia case, several suits were filed against Chicago gun bans (McDonald). Unlike the Heller case, which was a federal ban, this was state ban. The question was if the 2nd amendment applied to states, “because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states (McDonald).” The Supreme court ruled that through the Fourteenth Amendment, the states have the right to keep and bear arms. The reasoning was that it is "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty (McDonald)" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition (McDonald),” applies the power to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

So the Supreme Court gave the case to the Seventh Circuit, to determine if the certain gun bans in Chicago violated an individual’s rights. The finally ruling was that Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus was protected from infringement by the local government. Now certain gun laws in Chicago are still being disputed as to whether or not they are constitutional.

Gun rights have decidedly changed over time. Today we are faced with gun laws and restrictions. While new laws are being enforced, old laws are over thrown. In the case McDonald v. Chicago, the rulings from two previous cases, Slaughter-House and Cruikshank were overthrown. Guns have changed over our history. Back when the Constitution was written, practically everyone owned a gun. In 2015 only 22% of Americans owned guns (Jervis). Due to gun laws, many have not purchased guns.

Also, the simple fact of the decreasing popularity in hunting, has decreased gun ownership. In early American society, guns were a part of life. Persons would use guns for hunting and also for protection. Hunting for sport was also popular, with those who could afford to not hunt for their dinners. Now-a-days, we have such easy access to meats in the grocery stores, that the need for hunting is no longer so much a requirement. Society has also changed in the sense of gun violence. In the 1800s gun fights were more widespread, and things such as robberies and raids resulted in firearm misuse. Now we don’t have gangs of outlaws holding up banks and trains, simply because of society advancement and technology. We still of course have gangs, but they rarely hold up the bank by shooting the teller. It is move convened operation, involving more technology and strategizing. It not as easy to hold up a bank today as it was in the 1800s.

That is not to say that gun fights and murders don’t happen anymore. They do, even more than they did before, but the gun violence today is much different from that of the past. Simply put most of the nation does not walk around with a gun on their hip. What we face today is the increase problem of massacres.

Mass shooting seem to happen almost every week now! I just heard on the radio a case involving a man shooting his wife and two students at the school where she taught. He then shot himself. These kind of event is almost becoming popular in a sick way. Therefore, gun laws are becoming so heavy. In the U.S. “35,000 people a year die by firearms (Jervis).” People are afraid once more as they were in the 1800s that they could get shot. This is way gun bans aren’t the answer.

As they say, bad guys get guns, and good guys can’t. If a gun ban is enforced, the criminals will still get guns, heck they can even make them themselves. But law abiding citizens, can’t access guns, and now can’t defend themselves. Although some argue that time have changed since 1791, and the 2nd amendment no longer means the same thing, people today are still subjected to widespread violence.

An unconstitutional broad gun ban is not the answer to all these problems. A gun ban would strip the rights of those who have no obstacles to keep them from buying and own arms. It would be unlawful and unjust. It is like a teacher punishing the whole class for something that one person did. Just think how unjust that would be. Why it might even make National News. That is the same thing as banning guns. What we need to do is find the balance that will protect both our constitutional right and communities.

Works Cited

"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England - Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals, page 139". Avalon.law.yale.edu.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act.

District of Columbia v. Heller. Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290.

Halbrook, Stephen P. Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998, pp 174-175

Jervis, Rick. "3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns." USA Today, 22 Sept. 2016, www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017.

Justia. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017.

"McDonald v. Chicago." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521.

"Presser v. Illinois 116 U.S. 252 (1886)." Justia, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/252/case.html. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017.

Thompson, Isaac Grant, and Irving Browne. Albany Law Journal, Volume 14. Weed, Parsons & Company, 1876. Pp 10.

"United States v. Miller." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174.

U.S. Const., amend. II

[Phoenix98]

I live in Kansas we have the constitutional carry, meaning we have no regulations or laws hindering the 2nd amendment.

And actually if the Government itself did get rid of the 2nd amendment or any other amendment or right then the people involved are branded legitimate traitors. And that the act of taking away an amendment or right is seen as unconstitutional and void meaning even if they did it, according to the founding documents themselves the act has no power or authority.

Also according to the CDC statistics guns save a minimum of 500,000 people per year and save as many as 3,000,000 per year.

Of course the media never reports on any of those stories.

I bet no one even knew about the mass shooting at a church in Texas that was stopped by a NRA instructor who stopped a mass shooting in progress with his AR-15 and saved over 20-30 lives.

Lets not also forget the irony of shooters, it's liberals and democrats that advocate for gun bans, yet it's democrats and liberals that make up most mass shooters.

– Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Reg­istered Democrat and Muslim.
– Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
– Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
– James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occu­py guy, progressive liberal, hated Christians.
– Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
– Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
– James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.
– Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
dem mass murder– Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
– Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
– Bill Ayers, Weather Underground bomber – Leftist Democrat.
– Lee Harvey Oswald, Socialist, Communist and Democrat – killed Kennedy… LOOKS MORE LIKE A DEMOCRAT PROBLEM (just food for thought)?

Not done yet.

[Phoenix98]

There are 30,000 gun-related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U. S. population is approximately 328 million. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
- 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
- 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
- 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
- 3% are accidental discharge deaths

[Phoenix98]

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
- 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
- 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
- 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
- 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D. C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

[Phoenix98]

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime, but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault, are carried out by criminals, and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
- 40,000+ die from a drug overdose – THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
- 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
- 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths, even if you include suicide)

[Phoenix98]

Now it gets good:
- 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
- 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!

So what is the point? If congress and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, then even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths, or 4 times the number of criminal homicides…. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why is the focus on guns?

It’s pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments.

[Phoenix98]

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U. S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

[Phoenix98]

A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

Remember, when it comes to “gun control,” the important word is “control,” not “gun.”

** SOURCE: FBI. gov, on gun stats. Numerous sources on the other things such as cardiac arrest, etc. are easy Google searches. Then simply do the math in percentages?

[My99legend]

Wow this is a goldmine of information. You should put this all in a MyTake! Thanks for the response ☺☺👍🔥

[Phoenix98]

Your welcome and I have actually done mytakes with similar information in the past but I may make another one.

[My99legend]

Oh awesome :)

[EmperorOfRome]

My girl, you answered my call and posted a Take about gun rights!

And... What a Take! A history lesson presented with the true American spirit. Did you know? I've learnt to love guns when I lived in your country, 8y there. I realized that guns are an indissociable element of the American history and culture. It's like what the eternal flame was to the Ancient Rome. I learned to shoot at long distances by hunting 'yotes in the midwest. When I came back Hungary, I already know to hunt wild boar and make a nice BBQ. This was the America that I loved. Not the America of safe spaces, trigger warnings and cultural appropriation that is calling for gun ban.

The decadent mainstream culture has failed and it is only paving the way for nutcases like the mass shooters. The destructive elements of this, like the nihilism, should be fought off, and everything about the American policies on mental health must be rethinked. These are the problems of American society now, not the guns. And, from what I saw, the typical gun owner is averse to the mainstream in the USA, I can easily spot the differences between the countryside's Americans from the city dwellers in Portland or San Fran area.

Hum... Enough said, I will support you in the discussion. 😂
Thanks for sharing your Take, my Legend. Again you've made my day!

[My99legend]

Haha well your response made my day! I'm so glad you knew the real America! Haha and I love our love of firearms rubbed off on you 👍🐺
Once again a great response 💯... I thank you !

[EmperorOfRome]

I not only knew the Real America. I do ❤ too.
Guns and Western movies remind me of my old 'Murican days.

[EmperorOfRome]

Oh, not only guns and Western movies... Legends remind me of that, either! 😜😉
(I bet the Legend is sleeping at this time) 😂

[My99legend]

😂😂 Hahaha yup, sleeping legend 😉
First I'm like the Hungarian national anthem, now I reminded you of classic America... I just keep getting better!

[EmperorOfRome]

I can't help myself, you are a true Legend and a real American. Impossible it not evokes my memories of your country, a lot of what I think was shaped by my friendship with real Americans indeed.

[My99legend]

Haha well I'm truly honored! Thank you sir

[EmperorOfRome]

I noticed that the only person who is contesting you doesn't use her prominent ears and eyes to see new new points and hear people.

Maybe those ears are only useful to fly away... 😂

[My99legend]

😂😂😂 I guess so 💁

[Cccgala]

"...[Times] have changed since 1791, and the 2nd Amendment no longer means the same thing, people today are still subjected to widespread violence."

The second clause is not true. The lexicon incorporated in the Amendments that are in effect stand true throughout the test of time. The word 'arms' implies a broad array of catalysts/weapons for defense (knives, rifles, bow and arrow etc.).

People today are subjected to widespread violence because of the offenders' foresight that there would be vulnerable people. Depriving people of 'arms' or weapons for defense results to more vulnerable law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless.

[Paris13]

Beautifully Done, hun!!!
Stay Locked and Loaded, Keep your Bible even Closer, Be prepped and prepared.. LONG HAUL. xxoo

[Paris13]

Thank you, Lovely, For helping make my day as well. xxoo

[My99legend]

You're so welcome!💗

[Paris13]

Ohh, Have a Great weekend, hun. xx

[SirRexington]

The rational people aren't trying to ban guns, only trying to limit who has the privilege of owning one. We take precautionary measures about everything else in our lives in order to help minimize an undesirable act from occurring. But because they are guns, our precious second amendment right written on a piece of paper hundreds of years ago, we shouldn't do anything to change that.

Even most gun owners understand there has to be gun control. Criminals don't randomly shoot up places that are gun free zones, they target places they feel have wronged them or have money. And it's near unheard of for a law abiding gun owner to stop a shooter in public. Also for those gun owners, you are the first to die from a criminal because you are the greatest threat. So you get targeted and taken out first. Open carry causes more crime. www.theatlantic.com/.../
Do Right-to-Carry Gun Laws Make States Safer? - The Atlantic
news.stanford.edu/.../
Violent crime increases in right-to-carry states Stanford News
www.snopes.com/.../
Right-to-Carry Laws Make Violent Crime Rates Worse, Law...

You can have a hunting rifle, a pistol at home but not one in public. If you think you should be able to, then you shouldn't be trusted to carry one anyway. Gun control works as is evidenced by everyone who employs it. Crime spikes at first when these laws are put into place and then things settle down and become less frequent than before these gun control laws were put into policy.

I know a lot of gun rights activists love there guns but face it, your black and white type of thinking doesn't work. More guns, more crime. This is probability and statistics, math. If you deny math I hate to break it to you but you have no place in this conversation then because you are willing to deny math then you are willing to deny other truths as well.

[My99legend]

" Criminals don't randomly shoot up places that are gun free zones, they target places they feel have wronged them or have money. "
The last time I checked schools are gun free zones, and schools don't owe the shooter money. Shooters go into gun free zones all the time. Any state/ national building is gun free, and there's been plenty of armed criminals there.

[SirRexington]

Because they felt wronged. Great way to focus on one thing I mentioned and not the other. Crazy emotionally unstable kid shoots up school because it's what they are familiar with and what they have affected by the most.

As for a state building, they have armed guards. Aside from that I wonder what on Earth a criminal or angry person would try and shoot a government building for? Oh wait, it's the government, which most people have a score to settle with.

[Jon_25]

Heyyy there. 🤗 We have a misinformant.

So, as you have looked up how banning guns keeps people from shooting people, have you looked up how well this type of ban has worked for us with drugs, and terror? Every time we ban something, you are right 100% all the law abiding citizens listen, and they don't do that anymore.

The problem is, that they weren't the ones doing that in the first place. If there were people who used guns illegaly before, what the fuck makes you think they won't keep using them illegaly now? 🤔 MAYBE they will even GET them illegaly too! Because, you know, they aren't listening to laws anyways...

The only way to keep guns from being used illegally, just like any other item that can be used illegaly (literally everything), is to make it IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to get it AT ALL. Well, sorry but that really isn't possible. Again, look at the attempts on terror and drugs..

I can list sites telling our side too: cssa-cila.org/rights/ten-myths-about-gun-control/

[SirRexington]

@Jon_25 but the majority of shootings are being employed with guns bought legally. The illegal guns are mostly being used to kill other criminals over drugs, territory and disputes.

[Jon_25]

And if they were not legally available, then those guys would still get them. If you can do it legally, why not? That doesn't mean it not being legal would stop them though. They don't listen to gun USAGE laws, so why would they listen to gun OBTAINING laws?

You'd just be disarming the other people. Like you said, armed civilians are the armed criminal's biggest threat. You will have eliminated their biggest threat.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Some inaccuracies, first its not 35,000 people killed by guns a year, its more like 31000, but out of those 61% are suicides, 4% are accidents making the number between 10,000 and 11,000, or a third of that number. Then when you factor in that we live in a country of 325 million people, that is an incredibly small number. As for the mass shootings, the US not only does not have that many (we have fewer mass shootings then we do gun deaths and technically we have more deaths by automobile, more people struck by lightning then we do getting shot), we actually are not in the top spot of mass shootings. the top five are: Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, Switzerland. They just never bother to account for our massive population (third biggest in the world), and those nations are more restrictive with guns then the US. Further more you have the issue that even if we where to pretend that 31,000 people are killed by guns a year through violence (instead of suicides) you would have to compare that number to how many crimes where stopped by armed citizens (as opposed to armed police) which according to the most conservative estimate is over 65,000 a year, more then double that false number (other studies estimated as many as 2 million a year). So even then we can still see that armed citizens are a net positive. I realize that those where quotes from other sources but they are false hoods that need to be called out because they are used far to often to obfuscate the facts. Good take, well researched.

[My99legend]

Thanks for pointing out those discrepancies. I always try to find the most accurate information, but information especially concerning gun rights and violence tends to be exaggerated. And it's nearly impossible to find peer-review sources also. Again thanks for respond

[hellionthesagereborn]

Yeah, that's because the media, schools, and google itself are all on the left and do everything they can to distort the facts and make it as hard as possible to find information on the subject (I've stopped using google, don't trust them anymore after everything they have done). I can provide you some sources if you want but just use bing to look up the things I said and you will eventually find them.

[My99legend]

I actually use data bases like EBSCO to find a lot of my information. I've found them to be very accurate

[hellionthesagereborn]

Yeah, but diversity is also good, again National Crime Victimization Survey helps a lot as its done quite consistently and has a good methodology (random sampling and a lot of respondents) which is what the CDC bases a lot of information off of. Also the top 5 mass shooting countries was from OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) but yes reliable sources are very important.

[My99legend]

Thanks for the sources ☺

[hellionthesagereborn]

Not a problem!

[Kiran04]

A gun ban wouldn't strip anyone's rights. It'd cause a war between the right and the left, because the right wouldn't stand for it. I almost welcome the prospect. If things are so bad between opposing political ideologies that difference cannot be reconciled, then war is the only answer.

[My99legend]

A civil war would never be the ideal. But it would totally remove the left, bc none them can shot

[0112358]

I think you can put forward an argument that staggeringly high American gun ownership, focused on self defense, is a response to the unusually high level of violence in the U. S. compared to every other developed nation, not it's cause.

If that's the case, a gun ban won't help much (it would help some things hurt others).

I'm not sure what solution, if any, exists.

[Kiran04]

Unusually high? We rate middle of the pack when it comes to violence in western nations, so if anything we're average. Look at London having to ban knives so people don't get stabbed (which isn't working) and please tell me again how "unusually high" we are.

[0112358]

@Kiran04 The U. S. homicide rate is just under 5/100K per year. The United Kingdom's is 0.9, Spain, Italy both under 1, Australia & New Zealand, both just under 1, France 1.6, Germany under 1, Israel under 1.5, Canada about 1.7, Japan is 0.3, south korea and china under 1.

That's how "unusually high" the U. S. is.

What "pack" are you considering western nations? South & central America?

[Kiran04]

Sure, if you use wikipedia data from 2014, but the UK has been steadily on the rise since then.

[0112358]

@Kiran04 True enough the UK is up to around 1.3, maybe even 1.4 this year.

It's still less than 1/3 the U. S. rate.

[Anonymous]

Yep gun bans only take away guns from the good people and allows the bad ones to go on shooting rampages.

Look at all those shooting rampages in Canada, UK or AU ever since they instituted strict gun regulation/total bans. So many mass shootings...

I don't know where people are getting the idea that amendments can't be changed.

The word "amendment" itself is just that. Something that amends. And an amendment absolutely can be amended. The first amendment only talks about congress not limiting free speech yet SCOTUS has interpreted the 1st to such a degree that we now extend the first amendment to virtually everything. It's not unconstitutional in any way shape or form to impose stricter gun regulation.

[Anonymous]

Domestic gun violence kills more people in the us than terrorists and war.
cdn.vox-cdn.com/.../...20vs%20other%20problems.jpg

Your last meme was hysterical considering...
static.businessinsider.com/.../image.jpg

The second amendment is obsolete.

[imwithstupid]

but most of those are suicides

[Opinion Owner]

@imwithstupid there are approx 11,000 firearm homicides per year in the US. More lives taken than all terrorist acts against americans combined.

[imwithstupid]

well then why does your chart quote a much higher number. Must be liberal lying again. Guns save hundreds of thousands each year. I had to pull mine out once. It saved me without ever firing a shot or even pointing it

[Opinion Owner]

@imwithstupid the second chart says "2015 to date" meaning it came out in 2015 before the year was over. No liberal lying. Just retardlican stupidity.

12,979 gun related homicides in 2015.
oh and here look; a citation. something you never get from retardlicans who lie about everything.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

[imwithstupid]

your first chart says 450,000 gun deaths in 12 years, that's not 11,000 per year. Liar

[Opinion Owner]

@imwithstupid Again: 12,979 gun related homicides in 2015.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Where is your source for your figure that guns have saved hundreds of thousands of lives?
(horse shit, unverified lies from the nra don't count)

[Jon_25]

Yes! Great post! I'm glad someone is finally saying this!! 👍👍

[RationalMale]

Very nice paper.

Though the leftists don't care about whether it's constitutional or legal or not. What they care about is achieving their objective--in this case, disarming their opponents.

[WomenFearMe]

My99legend, agree with your article, love what you said. You're my type of girl... call me. :)

[My99legend]

Haha Thank You! ☺💕 I would, but I'm a woman and your name commands me to fear you 😂😂

[WomenFearMe]

We all know that firearms are the great equalizer, so if you're packing there is nothing for you to worry about. ;)

[My99legend]

Haha witty response, but it does shine poorly on your character, that I would have to pack to feel safe around you? 😂😬

[AlexEfron]

Why have guns in the first place? It's not a toy that everyone can own. If someone needs something for self defence then have stun guns 😑
And whenever I ask an American why "not" ban guns completely - the only reply I get is "You can't take away our FREEDOM" -_-

[imwithstupid]

guns are banned in Mexico, the murder rate is very high there and the government is under little pressure to fix it because the average Joe can't shoot back

[AlexEfron]

Compare it with Australia. The simple answer you'll get it that people are freaks.

[imwithstupid]

Australia and Canada have low violence because while they have similar land mass to the USA, they have a 80 or 90% less population. You just don't run into as many other people to be mad at

[AlexEfron]

Then compare it with China or India. Still more violence in America. Don't blame the population for that

[imwithstupid]

Yes, if you are afraid the government can come and lock you up for life with no explanation, you will not commit crime. I've been to both places by the way. A sexy 18 year old girl can walk in the poorest area of China in the middle of the night with no worries because everyone is terrified to be on the police radar.

[imwithstupid]

Also, there is no diversity in these countries. The majority of gun crime in the USA is committed by young black males. If young black males had the same murder rate as other groups, the USA would have the same murder rate as these countries you call good examples of gun control

[AlexEfron]

I don't quote them as good examples of gun control. My question is: What is the NEED of guns for ordinary civilians?

[imwithstupid]

to defend ourselves, for target shooting and hunting.

What is the need for citizens to have alcohol or unhealthy food or cigarettes. All kill more than guns and are not necessary

[AlexEfron]

Sure they all kill. And I'm against all. There's nothing productive in consuming alcohol or smoking cigarettes. Ban them for commercial use.
And as I said: USE STUN GUNS for self defence. Learn martial arts. Take permission to temporarily own a gun to go for hunting - a gun that has to be returned to the government after use.

[imwithstupid]

what about McDonalds and pizza? I'm sure many consider the same way you feel about cigarettes and booze? Which people get to decide what else should be banned? motorcycles, skydiving, sports cars, all dangerous to the user and others. bow and arrows, fireworks.

there are places in the world you can live and stay safe from all of these things. most of them are in the middle east

[AlexEfron]

Then I'd say that's the best place to live

[imwithstupid]

nothings preventing you from going there, when do you leave?

[Hydra6544]

Stun guns are tasers and just so you know tazers don’t work most of the time never trust a taser with your life

[zagor]

Actually the vast majority of gun murders are in ones and twos, not massacres.

[My99legend]

Yep, that's right. I said that mass shootings were on the rise. But that they are the leading factor of deaths.

[John_Doesnt]

That was written when an "arm" was typically considered a sword or firearm. And based on the context of why it was written we could easily say that Americans have the right to bear a sword in public, not a firearm.

[Hydra6544]

The definition of arm in this context is a weapon and I would be completely fine with carrying a sword around with me.

[Anonymous]

Relax gun nuts. No one is going to take your weapons no matter how high the body bags are stacked. Enjoy the carnage!

[Hydra6544]

Can I put this into a word document and use it against morons and tyrants.

[imwithstupid]

liberal logic: Only the Police should have guns... The police are racist murderers

[NerdInDenial]

Most gun deaths are suicides.

[Pamina]

Very funny myTake, thanks.

[My99legend]

Thanks for the confusing response 👍

[Pamina]

Wait, it wasn't a joke?

[My99legend]

Ummm considering this references 5 court cases and took me roughly 24 hours to research, fact check, write and edit; no it's not.
I do hope you ARE joking, to think that a myTake of this length is a joke.

[Pamina]

Ah okay. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your circle jerk here.

[My99legend]

No problem honey. I love it when people I'm not attacking, attack me... It definitely makes my actions wrong, and not theirs 👍

[Pamina]

Please don't shoot me!

[My99legend]

Don't break into my house and attempt me harm, and you have absolutely nothing to worry abour ☺

[Pamina]

It's not you specifically I'm worried about.

[My99legend]

Anyone out to kill ot harm you would be mentally unstable, and couldn't actually legally own a gun. So they'd be a criminal, and I'm equally as worried about them killing me as you are. That's why I support the right to have a way to defend myself.

[Pamina]

Nope, also not what I'm talking about.

[My99legend]

Haha well if you don't say what your talking about I really can't respond sugar 😛

[Pamina]

Okay honey pie.

[Celtero]

<3 guns.

[Anonymous]

dope