No. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves. In 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. __ (2010), the Supreme Court held that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. That American citizens have a right to own firearms is conclusive and irrefutable. The right to own a firearm was considered by both the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 and by the current Supreme Court to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion. These liberties are guaranteed to each of us by the first two amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. We may grit our teeth when watch the Ku Klux Klan use the rights guaranteed to Americans in the First Amendment to march and to make inflammatory statements with which we disagree. But would we say that because a few kooks use these rights to upset us we should restrict freedom of speech and peaceable assembly for all of the rest of us? Of course firearms can be used by criminals and by mentally ill nuts to commit crimes and to kill innocent people. But so can knives, cars and hammers. A speeding truck can cause the same mayhem as an illegally fired handgun. Guns are the most effective way for individuals to protect themselves and their loved ones from attack. So the right question to ask is not whether guns can be used to commit crimes; the right question to ask is: “Are guns used more often to prevent crimes or to commit crimes, and do they save more lives than they take?” The irrefutable fact is that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. States which allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns experience the lowest rates of violent crimes. Criminals are much less likely to attack people if they fear that their intended victims might be able to defend themselves. Since criminals do not know who is and who is not carrying a concealed handgun, if even only a few citizens actually carry concealed handguns they effectively reduce the likelihood of attack for everyone else.
Not outdated, but wrongfully interpreted. To some degree even abused. It was written to protect a new country against opposing governments. Like the Constitution and the bill of rights, it was written to preserve the new idea of a free country. Although some amendments still apply today. Some do not. For example, 3rd Amendment states that the U. S. government has the right to house soldiers in civilian households during wartime. Because of taxes we pay. No longer applies. 4th Amendment protects against search and seizures. Upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, a warrant will be issued. Yet at airports, everyone is searched without a warrant or even probable cause. We can adjust the 2nd amendment like other amendments.
How does the second amendment protect a new country against opposing governments? You also have the 3rd amendment wrong. It PREVENTS the government from housing soldiers in your house during time of war. You have two amendments wrong, yet still somehow managed to make "most helpful". @Goodwife Confirmation bias much?
SHALL-NOT-BE-INFRINGED how hard is that to understand? Also the 2nd was about giving the USA CITIZENS the power to OVERTHROW OUR corrupt government. Take a history class sometime
We should still be allowed to have guns. If you think about it people with guns are less likely to attack if there might be a possibility of guns. A gun convetntion usually doesn't get ttaacked while a gun free area gets attacked. Anyone else agree with me?
Nope. I was just using this as an example of how guns have changed. My kids were the same age as the Sandy hook victims, I've never cried so much for someone who I didn't even know.
So guns have changed but the guns that are legal are not the ones pictured here, which is a leap in logic. I’m putting it nicely there. And also nothing remotely like that was used in any school shooting.
American gun massacres don't even account for 1% of all firearm related fatalities in the country. Even if you eliminated them entirely, you wouldn't make a statistically recognizable difference in how many people die to gun violence every year. No one would even notice.
Does it matter what the percentage us? The truth of the matter is that it is happening way too much. 18 school shootings have taken place this year in the United States since January 1st, 2018. There shouldn't even be one shooting a year.
10.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
not outdated just too loosely interpreted. the 2nd amendment is designed to allow citizens to have arms to protect themselves from oppressive and tyrannical governments. too many have decided that the 2nd amendment is a right to own guns. this is the actual 2nd amendment as ratified in the constitution "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."
Okay I mean to be fair, the SCOTUS has interpreted it as granting the right to individual gun ownership, but that's also actually a pretty recent decision (like 2008ish maybe?) and I don't really agree with it and kinda blame it on Scalia and his "strict-constructionist" nonsense.
@cipher42 i don't disagree that the 2nd amendment grants the right to invidual gun ownership but according to the 2nd amendment it seems really suggest it is for a well regulated militia. the second ammendment makes no mention of collectors, gun enthusiast, psychos who want to shoot schools, or even hunters... i have no issue with hunting gun collecting... but these people who bang the 2nd amendment as their path to owning guns without regulation ignore the 1st part of a compound sentence.
I just mean that the right to own guns has been construed by the court as independent of the need for a militia. Because for a long time it was held that the right to bear arms was only a right in the context of militias, meaning that a lot more restrictions could be put on the nature and extent of allowed gun ownership. I'm not super duper familiar with the case in question (I think it was the DC vs Heller one maybe? Or another one around the same time) but basically the SCOTUS has pretty much dismissed the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.." bit as not having much if any effect on the conditions of where the right to bear arms applies. Which is dumb (especially since the people mostly in support of that interpretation are supposed "strict constructionists") but so it goes.
Ah, you don't understand the 1st part. In the vernacular of the time, "regulated" meant trained, and the "militia" was every able-bodied male citizen between 16 and 45. In other words, EVERY man and boy was expected to own a military-grade weapon, and ammo, and keep it in good repair, and show up once a month or so to drill in the town square. THAT was the "militia" that was "necessary to the security of a free state." And still is today. It's the pool from which the draft is drawn.
@cipher42 "by that interpretation it should be required that gun owners do constant gun training and be willing/able to be drafted." Sorry, this doesn't follow from anything I posted. Can you unpack it? Certainly, the law DOES allow male citizens between 18 and 45 to be drafted, but you'd have to explain what you mean by "constant gun training". I myself try to get range time in every week... Most gun owners I know actually enjoy training, either by hunting or range time.
@taleswapper the "well regulated" part of "well regulated militia". Your argument, as far as I understand it, is that the militia=the people, therefore the militia keeping/bearing guns=the people keeping/bearing guns. However, as you noted, part of being in a militia was regular training and weapon care. Thus, if the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, having the right to bear arms should require the person bearing the arms to be capable of being in a "well regulated militia" by doing regular gun training and being otherwise "well regulated" and capable of militia work in the first place.
@cipher42 Thus, if the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, having the right to bear arms should require the person bearing the arms to be capable of being in a "well regulated militia" by doing regular gun training and being otherwise "well regulated" and capable of militia work in the first place."
You have it exactly backwards, sir. the right to bear arms is NOT contingent on being in the militia, because the militia is everyone. The need for a militia is the reason everyone has the right to bear arms.
@taleswapper So do you think gun safety training should be constitutionalky required for gun ownership? And do you think only people capable of being drafted should be allowed to own guns?
@cipher42 Nope. you're confusing the reason for the amendment (the dependent clause about the militia), with it's effect (Acknowledging the right to own firearms). The right it not limited to the purpose; but extended to all.
@taleswapper if a person cannot be in a militia, then there is no reason for them to have a right to bear arms by that logic. If there is no regulation to the militia, then again there is no reason for a right to bear arms. The reason is important. But regardless, it is true that the militia clause has been rendered largely irrelevant by judicial rulings. So, on the right itself, how far does your interpretation say it should extend?
@cipher42 as a rule of thumb, I believe it should extend to any arms the cops or line soldiers carry. And for the same reasons they carry them. Because that's what you'd be issued, if you were called up...
@taleswapper If you get called up, you get trained to use weapons by the military. Why is it necessary to allow regular citizens to carry such weapons before being drafted? And what limitations should there be on access to such weapons?
@taleswapper I doubt weapons training takes up a significant chunk of training time, and I highly doubt it actually broadens the base since its not as though people who haven't previously used guns are incapable of learning.
@cipher42 Your thoughts are noted, but irrelevant. both the founding fathers and SCOTUS disagree with your assessments, as do I. you are starting off with the premise that it's good to limit the people exposed to firearms; but we are starting with the assumption that in order to have the best trained and equipped military in the world, it's best to expose as many as possible to them. So far, history demonstrates we're right.
@taleswapper okay, cite me the court case where the SCOTUS makes the same argument you're making. And what history so far demonstrates is that this kind of gun culture (the kind you're perpetuating) leads to thousands of needless deaths of innocents without anything being done about it.
@cipher42 Nope. Do your own homework; I'm done with your nonsense. When you come back to me able to cite at least three cases where SCOTUS upheld the right to keep and bear arms, then we'll resume.
@taleswapper if you make the claim, you support it. Its called the burden of proof friendo, and by attempting to fallaciously shift it to me all you're doing is proving how incapable of making a valid argument you are.
@cipher42 "Okay I mean to be fair, the SCOTUS has interpreted it as granting the right to individual gun ownership, but that's also actually a pretty recent decision (like 2008ish maybe?) " you made it too, so feel free. You're just trolling with this request.
@taleswapper? No? Dude do you know how to read? That comment was not even to you, it was to someone else, about someone else. In this argument, the one we're having now, you are attempting to cite the SCOTUS as supporting your claims. If that is the truth, you should be able to provide evidence in the form of supreme court rulings. I have made no claims about the SCOTUS's decisions backing my claims. I made A claim about a SCOTUS decision, yes, but I did not then attempt to use that claim to support my greater ideological argument in my side of this debate. So, can you give evidence of your claims or can't you?
i think the simple fact is people who point to the 2nd amendment as their reason to own a gun point to it without acknowledging that it is more than just a right to own guns be a "well regulated militia" a milita being an organized group. regulated meaning there are stipulations to your right. I think the supreme court simply opted to give a vague interpretation. the amendment certainly does grant the right to own guns while being a well regulated militia
Most people don't know what the 2nd amendment actually says. I think that the language is open to debate, but it doesn't really matter. The idea of the 2nd amendment as somehow sacred is rather silly. It's the ideas that matter. "The government of today has no business telling me how to live my life, because the government 200 years ago already did!"
More like, "The government of today has no business telling me how to live my life because other governments today tell others how to live their lives and imprison or kill them if they don't listen."
@Kiran04 There are a few ways to word it. I'm a libertarian, but I'm under no allusions that I will be able to fight against the government should it come after me.
My thoughts on the gun issue is relatively complex, typically pointing out the stupidity of both extremes.
@ladsin why wouldn't citizens be able to fight back against the goverment? We have more guns than they do.
As it is gun right are already to restricted. In the 1920 we had large public schools and people owned fully automatic machine guns, yet there was no school shootings.
In the 60s it wasn't unusual for a kid to bring guns to school and get into no more trouble than talking in class. Again no shool shootings.
The gun is not the problem. Its the people and the corruption of society. Blaming the gun is like an acholoic blaming the beer, it not the item it the person.
@John_W There's hardly any comparable statistics from the 60s, and I have a serious problem with this romantcization of the past. The past was not great. In the 60s spousal rape was not even against the law. Desegregation was barely a thing, with schools in my hometown refusing to allow colored folk in until the 80s. Those who are older who try to claim some sort of moral superiority are just fractally wrong.
That said, it may be possible for people to stand up against the military, however the fact that the highest centration of guns is from rural and southern communities, as well as a higher concentration of military members from these areas leads more to my point that this is impossible. Military members will not engage in potentially lethal action against persons that could be there brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, etc anymore than you could get a strong uprising to go about murdering our military personnel and police. Pretending that the same group that argues for--
blue lives matter is at the same time going to stand up and fight against them en masse for doing their job is preposterous.
What's more, this dichotomous thinking of either "GUN BAN" or "NO GUN LAWS" is a trope perpetuated by both sides to quash any reasonable compromise and that is both frustrating and dishonest.
(I'm referring to the whole idea of a an actual conflict occurring.)
While bombs would be devestating it would take though those tools of destruction to get either into the air or properly launch what many dont understand is that the proper scalpel though could make any nuclear or incindary or balistic action would come at massive cost.
But a rebellion on the scale of Afghanistan started in the US even US military would struggle to stem the chaos. Not to mention the misuse of bombs and explosives if word got out about civilian casualties it would only fuel the power/influence rebels or extremeists. So while yes US military could squash one rebelion. it could lead to a worse one.
Kinda why there's the idea of if your going to kill an organization you do it from the inside out. In which one could argue for the CIA or MI5 getting involved. Though that also could go wrong as all it takes is one rogue agent with access to the main frame and poof go the secret agencies power in the fight.
@Pyrofox I agree, I pointed it out in similar posts, as well as here, that the government forceful revocation of guns would never happen.
The largest being that our legislative branch (namely the police and military that would be asked to get these guns) would not take action against their families who statistically more likely to already own weapons. The whole idea is impractical and a farce in my estimation.
@ladsin you are conflating issues by pointing out things in the past not realted to gun violence. Illegal to rape your wife (which was never true in the U. S.) is not taking a rifle to school and shooting people. The past was filled with humans, they did some things better than us and some things worse. Right now we are talking about guns (which the 60's did far far better) not segregation (which the 60s did far far worse) so stop conflating the issues.
@John_W Ugh... I agree that the two aren't the same, but just to be accurate. Spousal rape laws/ exemptions weren't removed until the mid 70s to mid 90s.
I wasn't conflating issues I was quite particular in my terms. I was contesting the romantacization tendencies of the past. It may be the case that school shootings were less frequent. I don't know. I'm not aware of any comparable statistics, as I also pointed out in my response.
@ladsin, "A person with his rifle is not going to be a match for a drone. A nuclear strike. The airforce attacking us with incendiary strikes etc." Would you want to be the Air Force general to order drone attacks or incendiary bombings against civilian targets in the US? Because I can tell you one thing; he's not likely to survive giving that order for long. It's a criminal order, inviolation of several laws of the land and the UCMJ. Remember, the soldier assumes the citizen. And it only take one to spot an illegal order and take action to end the whole process. Obedience to orders isn't mindless, but mindful. There were several times in my 20 year career in the US military that I flat-out refused an unlawful order, much to the chagrin of the officer giving it. I never suffered a court martial for doing so, either.
@taleswapper I don't think you've read my views on the subject. I clearly stated that this would never happen. Our military personnel would not attack their own families with extreme prejudice
The one thing though that even high tech drones military uses wouldn't be prepared for is if extremists got their hands on a EMP kamakazi drone. With a powerful enough payload and small and easy to get up in the air. Could easily render unmanned air weaponry a huge challenge.
As well the old COD ghosts already proved Station launchable missile set up could be disastrous.
While I do talk about these hypothetical ideas keep in mind I do have huge respect for US military and military in general. As my grandpa is a vet and I constantly think about how much different my life would be had the US military not existed as my life would be completely different if the Korean war had gone differently.
@taleswapper I'd have to have more information. I suppose that I don't know how easy it is to make these, but I highly doubt it's that simple, otherwise terrorists would be utilizing emp blasts every week to cripple the US economy.
you need a good technician, and access to the parts in quantity, but unlike a foreign terrorist, an insurgent in the US could easily have both. Obviously, i'm not going to lay out a blueprint for doing it, but it's MUCH easier than a lot of folks seem to believe.
@taleswapper I'll have to take your word for it, but the fact that of the ~100 terrorist attack on the US last year none used them I can't imagine it's actually that simple.
@Kiran04 it did go away from the question about the 2nd amendment, but the conversation has been germane since his initial response about people actually being able to defend themselves from the government which was my response to you at the top of this thread.
@Kiran04 Let me ask you do you have a family member or know someone who has fought for the dreamed up idea that an outside power can fix a country such as Afghanistan? And you have heard of the "Dark Web" right?
And EMP's dont have to be big just large enough to fry the targeting systems on a drone. That could be done cheaply.
The harsh reality out of any first world country US citizens have the largest acess to weapons and tools to if we wanted to. We could probably pull off a blitzkrieg
I mean hell we have had citizens in the US get arrested for the illegal holding of a functioning Gatling gun. XD. Not to mention its not hard to get someone to go rogue either. If you ever looked into the history money and promises go along ways.
The honest truth is yes off of US soil US military is a power house but on it if rebel or extremists get the word out US military are getting civilians in the cross fire and have gone rogue. Who do you think the general population is going to support?
No way, not a chance in Hell. Also your statement is inaccurate. There were repeating and multi-barrel firearms back then. Also the founders had no restrictions at all on arms; to include civilians owning things such as cannon. Much of the continental firearms and artillery were owned/supplied by civilians. You can't buy artillery today. The entire reason for the 2nd Amendment is a check and balance for the Federal Government, NOT for hunting or even self defense; those are just nice perks. The Founders wanted the citizens to have any weapon that the government had access to and many have said as much in private correspondence, journals or papers written in their own hand. Taking the guns from law biding citizens WILL NOT STOP THE CRIME. It will simply make it worse as there is no one armed to oppose them except the Police who I think have a national response time average of somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 minutes last stat. that I've seen. If you'd ever been to the broken horrendous, murderous places across the world that I've been you'd know exactly how valuable arms are to keep the government in check as well as other groups of people bent on hate. The criminals and evil will always be armed, so why make the law biding citizens an easy target? No one wants to see kids killed, no one wants to see mass shootings, not one real gun owner, and there are millions in the US. You know what will stop it? What is the driving factor in all of them? What makes these unstable, disenfranchised people do this horrible act? They've had their asses kicked and been picked on their whole lives right? What was this last guy saying? "I'm going to be a schools shooter" over and over again. Why? Notoriety, fame, he wanted to finally, if even for a short time; be feared by tens of thousands not the one scared, he wanted to be the big man. The media's incessant coverage of the shootings and those who perpetrate them encourages them to kill because they think they will become immortal in fame. Look at Switzerland. One of the lowest murder and crime rates in the world, but EVERY male is issued a military select fire (full auto) rifle when they hit the militia age. If it was the evil AR-15's then Switzerland would be a blood bath. Most places in Africa ALL firearms are banned, but in DRC over 5 million people have been slaughtered since the mid 1990's. That's one country, in a total gun ban. Gun control NEVER works.
So what's your point? That I should protect my home, my person, go hunting, or.. God forbid, put down a repressive government with a 1-shot per minute musket?
Ya know, a horse and buggy was THE most advanced form of transportation when the Constitution was written. Yet cars cause FAR more deaths than guns do!!! Why should we own a car? Who "needs" a fully automated SUV, capable of speeds well over 100mph that can kill HUNDREDS? It's ridiculous that we allow this! We need to have common sense transportation laws!!! If you're as old as your profile indicates, you should KNOW WHY the 2A was written. Our founding fathers came from an excessively repressive govt. They made sure the people under this one were NOT going to be subject to that same shit they came from. So they made sure the right to own weapons was the number 2 item after the freedom of speech and religion was in the Constitution. It's more than about gun ownership.
The founding fathers addressed the human condition with the 2A (and other Ammendments), so regardless of technological changes, those words still have serious meaning. Obviously, my opinion is no, the 2A is NOT outdated!
@mac_daddy416 - Puhleeeze!!! 300 rounds a minute? Not possible by any gun readily available, INCLUDING an AR15. The barrel would overheat in that time.
But... to counter your over exaggeration, vehicles have been used quite often, especially where guns are illegal.
21 Dec 2017 - Melbourne Australia - a vehicle plows into a crowd of Christmas shoppers.
31 Oct 2017 - Manhattan, NY - a U-Haul rental truck was used as a weapon, killing 8, injuring at least 12.
17 Aug 2017 - Barcelona, Spain - at least 14 killed and over 100 injured.
12 Aug 2017 - Charlottesville, VA - one woman killed and 19 injured during an anti-anti-Trump-Antifa protest.
3 June 2017 - London Bridge, England - 8 killed, 40 wounded.
7 April 2017 - Stockholm, Sweden - 5 people killed, about a dozen injured.
22 Mar 2017 - Westminster Bridge, London England - 5 people killed with scores injured.
14 July 2016 - Nice, France - 84 killed, 200+ injured.
Should I go on? We absolutely NEED common sense vehicle laws!
@mac_daddy416 It doesn't have to. In 2016, in Nice, France a truck was rammed into a crowd killing 86 people and crippling 458 others. Comparable to the Las Vegas shooting, which if I'm not mistaken was the deadliest mass shooting in the US history. And the perpetrator used a machine gun, which was already illegal. I've said it befora and will say it again: if someone is hellbent on hurting others, he will find a way to do it. Perhaps if someone in that crowd was armed, they could have killed the driver before he killed so many
@Filipe97 - in Las Vegas, the individual used a "bump-stock" on his AR15's, allowing the rifle to recycle faster. It was NOT a machine gun.
You're 150% correct in that if someone is Hell-bent on killing others, they're going to use whatever weapon they have available, to include vehicles, knives, machetes, baseball bats, and let's not forget what the assholes did during the Boston Marathon a few years ago - using pressure cooker bombs loaded with ball bearings.
As far as outlawing guns goes, there are several cities in the US that have extremely restrictive laws for possessing and ownership, yet their murder rates are actually higher than in places where those restrictions don't exist. Baltimore, Wash DC, St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, LA, Chigago, and others - all run by liberals for decades, yet their anti-gun policies haven't reduced the gun violence one bit.
Now here is where you are definitely not correct. The second ammendment was written to protect citizens from a government and to protect the Constitution. Giving citizens the same weapons as the government. It did not have mental health in mind. It also denies the government its ability to house soldiers in private housing. Should it be changed yes and no it should have a ammendment to it removing that right to people that Psychologist deems a theat to themselves and or others beginning at the age of 14 and not restored untill said person has a full psychological evaluation from a forensic or criminal psychologist, without medication. One who specializes with insight into the criminal mind. I blame these mass shootings on our society we have devalued life and family in our society. With mentally weak individuals they literally get their minds lost in game where it is ok to kill and without discipline, they act on these fantasies of the game. So is the second ammendment outdated no, does it need to be ammended yes. Know is the AR 15 a assault weapon no it is a semi automatic modern sporting rifle. Assault weapons have been band since the 80s. Without a Federal Class 3 Firearms License you can not own a Assault Weapon in the United States of America. It is also Illegal to produce for sale to citizens a new assault weapon. That is why a M16A1 in the civilian market cost $16'000.00 and up.
@Bear41 "Know is the AR 15 a assault weapon no it is a semi automatic modern sporting rifle. Assault weapons have been band since the 80s. Without a Federal Class 3 Firearms License you can not own a Assault Weapon in the United States of America. It is also Illegal to produce for sale to citizens a new assault weapon. That is why a M16A1 in the civilian market cost $16'000.00 and up."
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban You have NEVER needed a Class 3 FFL to own one. The ban expired in 2004 and has not yet been renewed. Even while the ban was in effect, it was legal to own and/or transfer one; many were "grandfathered". And you can buy an M16A1 for less than US3k
Working M16A2. Where. I have a class III FFL from when I was working on firearms and was looking to own one. I wouldn't get my information through something that even a 16 year old can go change things.
See GunBroker. com, for one... Seriously, I just Googled "M16a1 [the model you originally mentioned] for sale" and several places popped up. And your unwillingness to accept facts from Wikipedia is not supportable. Feel free to ask a law professor who specializes in gun law, if you prefer. But I've provided contrary data; now you have to DEMONSTRATE that the data is incorrect.
Maybe you should look up that actual law. Wikipedia anyone has been able to edit things for years. It also says fascist are right wing people. The truth of right wing people is we believe in smaller government. Not larger government. We believe that the government should be playing a smaller roll in personal lives. Not telling us what insurance policy we must have.
"Maybe you should look up that actual law." Problem with that is the laws don't reflect changes promulgated by court rulings. It's still against the text of the law for interracial couples to get married in Georgia, because the legislature hasn't gotten around to modernizing the language. But I assure you, the SCOTUS ruling overturning those laws are in effect, and you can still marry interracially, even in Georgia. So the text isn't the final word by any means. If you have a definitive source that contradicts the Wikipedia article, trot it out.
It is 635 pages long, was modified it 2004. And still makes owning a Class III A automatic weapon require a $200.00 tax stamp that goes into a further background checks. But maybe this will satisfy your beliefs that the AR 15 is not a assault weapon. Because it is a semi automatic weapon. Meaning for evertime the trigger is depressed one round is fired. www.atf.gov
You're conflating "assault weapon" with an automatic; that's inaccurate. An assault weapon is ANY semi-auto or auto rifel with a detachable magazine and two or more of the following: Folding stock; Silencer threads; Bayonet lugs; pistol grip extending below the receiver; Other (as defined by individual jurisdictions). The AR-15 meets the criteria, even though it's only a semi-, not a full auto. But because it is NOT full auto, you don't need an FFL to own one.
I know for a fact the ATF doesn't define assualt weapons. They would tell you Machine gun, semi automatic rifle, Shot gun, pistols, Destructive Devices, the definition of a assualt weapon was done by the US Army.
Nope. Go to the ATF website, and type "assault rifle" into the search bar. The Army, by the way, does NOT have a classification called "assault rifle" or "assault weapon".
According to a case i was just reading the AR15 with a barrel under 16 inches in length is federally monitored by its serial number. The only thing I see as far as assualt weapons is all listed this same way. Copied from the ATF website. Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin.
The civilian modern sporting rifle that you can pick up with a normal back ground check at most big box sporting good stores it not a selective fire weapon. It has safe and fire as your options. And a barrel longer than 16". Your argument sir is the same one contoling nuts have had for decades. Here is a hard fact if you blame the weapon you are not blaming the person. Your not making them responsible for their actions. And guess what weapon has been used in more mass shootings the handgun or your so called assualt weapon.
Yes, I do believe we need stricter gun laws. I don’t believe in a ban! But that’s just propaganda from extreme right-wing to manipulate people to keep free access to whatever guns they want. I don’t think the 2nd amendment meant for citizens to have military grade weapons. I do believe it’s the right of all citizens to have a gun, unless deemed mentally unstable or you have a prior history of a violent crime, then your right to that is taken away forever. Guns have changed and society has changed, like you said, so we do need to figure out a way to adapt to both, for starters maybe we should stop letting kids play halo, grand theft auto and all the video game pointless violence. Also movies, at a certain age have all that, raise the age limit too 21 or 24 on some violent crimes. Some music as well, parents should try to promote better values at home. I know that’s hard with the way life is and it’s hard because both parents are out house working, or single parent home.
Yes this has worked so well at keeping guns out of the hand of criminals. Just look at Chicago, New Orleans, and compare them to Dallas, and Houston, San Antonio, notice a difference give good people their guns and bad people Criminals leave them alone.
So how many of those good people made one bad decision with a gun in their hand? The Las Vegas shooter prime example... not really a mark on his record. Planned to the letter, bought everywhere gun in the gun shop. Sat in a hotel room and sprayed people with bullets. You think a person that’s armed would have taken him out? Your sadly mistake. I agree if the person where to walk into a diner and just try and shoot people the probability of people have a gun in their are greater to take the guy out.. that’s a feel good scenario..
Also, what about the former NFL linebacker gunned down by a guy that carried? He got road rage and ended someone’s life. Those stories happen more than you know.. from “good” people making bad mistakes driven by guns. Would those people be alive today if they didn’t have guns? Probably, but stricter laws would help their as well.
If your good my brother and follow the rules, you will have no problems getting your guns in the first place... what’s wrong with more extensive evaluations and longer waiting period, plus no military grade weapons? If you have nothing to hide, you won’t be fighting so hard to keep it the way it is... I’m a law abiding citizen. I plan on getting a gun soon. I’m not worried about anything in the process. It’s an easy concept
Yeah Chicago is also one of the more corrupt as how it’s run from the government and poor. It’s used a lot, all major cities have gun problems. Crime is high when their is poverty. It’s not rocket science, it’s common sense facts. You walk into a neighbor in Chicago as a”good” citizen with a gun and see how it turns out for you. I’m not trying to discount the fact that good people need guns. I’m saying have stricter policies in place to vet the one that want it. Just like the say they vet immigrants. Let me ask you a question, do you think building a wall will keep undocumented immigrants from crossing the border? They are “illegal” they will get over anyways or under or around..
Many good people are alive today because they had a firearm. More than you know because the media won't let that out. I have a idea that won't stop them all together but will stop mentally ill from being able to legally buy a firearms. And your good person in Vegas funny he picked a event that would be a hotter ticket item for people that are conservative in nature. John Gasser was convicted of Manslaughter. You should call the police and stay away from an aggressor. Even law abiding gun carring people try not to use their weapons unless they have no option but to do so. Or they have to use it in defence of another. Here you have point out two people who used their weapons illegally. I use to find in the newspapers searching on line at least 5 a week who protected themselves or their families with firearms. Even law enforcement officials suggest for law abiding citizens to arm themselves for protection. Because it takes to long for them to get there.
Ok so what does that have to do with stricter policies on getting a gun? If your good you get the gun anyways, if you don’t beat your wife, rob your neighbor or have a road rage issue, you get a gun! I don’t see what your trying to argue. I just agreed with you that every citizen has the right to have a gun and protect themselves. But the media also doesn’t document all the road rage incidents that turn violent with a firearm, or the disputes in neighborhoods where neighbors pull guns on each other. Just as many stories as people protecting themselves their are stories of people making bad decisions. But the media won’t cover those either. I do call the police, because I’m paying money for them to protect and serve. I will get a firearm because it is a deterrent, but my hard earned tax money will not go to waste. Their are many many more that have that are now classified as mentally ill that had violent past or patterns that still got guns and were not flagged.
With a more extensive background check it could have prevented. Yes, we will not prevent all criminals from getting guns. But if someone really really wanted to kill you, you think you would stand a chance even if you owned one? Pre-meditated or even if it was spur of the moment. They still have the advantage with their intentions. I’m just saying, common sense dictates that we need to try to at least get a jump on the bad ones and have them flagged so they don’t end up shooting schools, theaters and churches again!
If they add amendments to the 2A I would be fine with one that allowed Psychologist to suspended 2a rights from the age of 14 till such time the have a complete mental evaluation if they are deem a threat to themselves and or others. They may have their right restored after after a complete mental evaluation without medication if they are deem a no Longer a threat.
And what happens if they pass the psych evaluation and end up mass killing people? sociopathic people can easily manipulate psychological evaluation. How would you explain that?
Easy if you read my full one that I posted. The second evaluation is done by a Forensic or Criminal Psychologist and they have a chemical or gas hair Follicle test done to prove they off their meds at least 3 months. You will never eliminate mass murders. It you could somehow get rid of every gun on the planet. They would use something else, bombs, cars, swords, aircraft, etc but you can eliminate some. Look at Texas they have had any events in schools with armed teachers, because criminals go after soft targets. Look at NYC guy rented a Truck in New Jersey ran over and killed several people in Manhattan on a bike and walking trail. There is a estimated 322 million legal guns in the United States of America alone. Of those firearms less than.1% are used kill people out of Malice. There are also a estimated 10 million illegal firearms that have been used to commit crimes in the United States of America. What kills more people per day in the USA? Guns, Cars, or Swords.
If you don't believe the 2nd Amendment is meant for civilians to own military weapons then 1. You're very ignorant of military weapons history and 2. You need to read the 1939 US vs Miller Supreme Court ruling.
Try reading The second ammendment. Notice shall not be infringed. So If someone really wanted to be a second ammendment jackass and had the money to do it. They could effictively argue and win that their second ammendment rights are being infringed. The second ammendment was written to protect citizens from a government of Tyrants. The AR 15 is not a assault weapon. It is not a automatic weapons. It is a semi automatic weapon.
@Bear41 and that statement proved my point. Which logical thinking people would understand. Guns were not automatic they didn't shoot hundreds of rounds per min. So when they made that law you really think they were thinking about these guns we have today? Come on your blind if you think that's the truth, just like our friend @gotc147. It's funny to me that as labour and industry has changed, labour laws and policies have been transformed to make them better. Guess what, they adapted. As transportation, cars and planes got better and better, the laws changed, they adapted. But gun laws have been probably the longest policy to remain, and we are fighting so hard to keep it that way. I don't need to read court cases and about it. Case studies would be better. And I will do a bit more research because by far I'm not an expert...
But from what you both have been arguing (Well @Bear41 has done a much better job at) still isn't common logic because of the example I've stated above. However, your statement of tyranny and so forth. First, I've not seen a hint of that right being infringed
To me it sounds like talking too children who don't want to give up playing with their toys because they are abusing it or abusing someone else and then trying to say its my right too have it. Structure and common sense law doesn't mean infringement. That's a child tantrum argument
Also, depending what side your on or how you feel that day you may feel the government is tyrannical. I know when Obama was in office the Right definitely thought so, now that Trump, the left does.. so that's up too your interpretation of tryannical. But I do know this, if you think your going to win against a government now that is more resourceful and more power then the 3 military grade weapons you have in your basement then good luck, I hope you have those affairs in order.
And yes, @gotc147 I'm not an expert at guns, ignorant about some facts about guns but the basics I know and the laws that surround them are pretty straightforward. The way they have changed. It's not a hard concept.
By the way @got147 how ironic that Miller was found shot to death in this case. Secondly, money grab because of the NFA being part of the IRS. And third, question to both, do you believe a violent offender should have the right get his guns back after he has been prosecuted? Cause it seems like that's where this argument is going!
Well for the last 12 years some have been calling for a convention of states, including myself. I have suggested that term limits and limits of congress to vote on their own raises. Putting it into the Constitution. Also adding a mental heath restriction on 2a. 2A was written to protect all other ammendments. Just like the ability of the states to restrict the power of the federal government by going to a convention of states. And the ability of the states to form militias.
Yeah I agree with you on your first. There should be term limits that I can agree on. And yes it is sad that they know more, work harder and have more common sense than most Americans! Even tho we boost about having the best educational systems our people, from Congress on down to the ones common citizens are less educated and have no common sense. Shows where the state of this country is. And has been for a forever
I agree they come to this country and work harder in school and business. But I blame our Society when it comes to citizens education. No child left behind started this we grade on a curve. So kids got lazy. Us as parents know that our kids screw up but yet we back them against the teachers. We need to push them harder to be better than us in school. If we do that maybe our schools won't be such a joke to the rest of the world. We need to also push them to respect one and other. And I think to not except free stuff from a government. I took a closer look into the welfare programs, it is a trap.
I agree with that sentiment. It all starts at home. And how you help your kids develop, reason, process information and make common sense decisions. I agree 100%
Sad part is not many of us parents spend enough time with our children. And most do not Discipline their kids. I feel pretty good when my daughter comes back from other people's home and they tell me how good she is.
Granted I wonder what they have done with that child after a few days.
You will eventually. I wish you luck and my word of advice is educate yourself on what your state considers child punishment and child abuse. I found out that Mississippi doesn't consider spanking to the butt as abuse.
Civil gun ownership should be for home defence or hunting but you don't need a semi auto ar15 with a 30 round magazine firing a 5.56 NATO rounds. They shouldn't allow people with serious mental health issues to own guns, there should be strict central registration for all guns, there should be no ghost guns, all guns should be locked in a secure gun cabin with a code only you know, to own a gun you must first submitt to allow authorities to inspect your guns at anytime, you must be trained in gun safety. Also there needs to be a serious examination of the Guns you are allowed for home defence and hunting. Ownership of assault rifles should be allowed like in the UK but must be kept at the gun club. A serious look should also be taken with ammunition how much your allowed and the type.
But any person at any stage in life can go through a period of poor mental health and all it takes is a marriage break up, loss of job, death in the family or work place bullying.
Does poor mental health relate to a history of mental health such as that guy in Florida. Another thing is a serious look at the relation of antidepressants and anti anxiety tablets to mass killers needs to be looked at.
That argument is so illogical... "I trust you with certain guns but not others" if you trust me not to do damage with one type of gun, why do you not trust me not to do damage with other kinds of guns? My mindset doesn't change just because I go from holding a pistol to holding a machine gun.
@gotc147 when your AR15 misfires and kills the child in the house across the street yeah... Why not keep a howitzer in your garage and an old ww2 88 on your roof.
When the cops don't carry guns, then I won't either. because I'll know I don't need to. Until then, I apparently DO need to, for the same reason cops do. self-defense, not home defense. because I go everywhere the cops do, in public.
And before guns it was bows, arrows, and swords, and before swords it was stones. The second amendment applies just as much today as it did the day it was written. The second amendment refers to "arms" not just firearms. A skilled archer could lose 6 arrows with extreme accuracy in 6 minutes. A skilled swordsman could have killed everyone in a tavern within minutes if no one else had a sword.
If guns are faster now... no less should we be able to defend ourselves. Besides that... human rights don't change just because technology does.
The 2nd amendment was for self defense and it is your right too defend yourself. That being said citizens were allowed to have cannons on their ships too defend themselves if needed so I would say that was much worse than a musket back in those days. Semi auto matic weapons should be legal and if a person uses it for evil they should be shot on the spot. I see no need for automatic guns in the hand of citizens. But a semi automatic with a 12 bullet magazine would be ideal for both home defense and hunting.
Totally yes. In Europe you need a weapons licence for a gun an how many shootouts at school or uni are there? If you have 300,000,000 weapons around some will fall into the wrong hands. And with a weapon you can do some harm :-(
@ASMRROSS I guess you work for the weapons lobby? I'm happy I don't live in a country where you can buy a gun (so a criminal as well) just like candy. Where in the world is 80% of the shootouts? How big is the chance to catch a criminal while he's trying to get a weapon if that's too easy? Hum hum!
Well…no shit Sherlock. :-) Laws of any country should keep changing, reaction on technological progress. Because, if you will, according to the 2nd amendment, you can own nuclear weapons. Sure, why not? Nice nuclear missile silo on your backyard, storage of missiles underground, nuclear warheads in the basement, satellite uplink for targeting… Or, if you’re not into that sort of things, minigun, for example. Mount it on your truck, put boxes of ammo on back, and you have perfect weapon. You can wreck someone’s car, if you get cut in traffic, or something. :-) 100 rounds per second is, in the end, 100 rounds per second. And that’s good. :-)
@gotc147 the right to bear arms means to carry or at least be able to own. Police officer s are starting to not be allowed to even carry a firearm because it might intidate them
@JesseTheGirl No, but it is a weapon. @gotc147 Wot? Mate, do you think, that anyone in the army can carry it? No. Besides, the act of targeting and launching is from device you can carry, so… You assume that I’m parroting. No. I just happen to like nuclear weapons. That’s all.
@JesseTheGirl I’ve heard people interpret it in really different ways. “You” say nuclear weapons no. OK, let’s scale little bit. Tank? Warship? No? OK. Even though you can “carry” it, or more precisely, it carries you (ideal for lazy asses like me). So… Minigun? 100 rounds per second? You can carry it, if you are strong, or you can mount it on top of a car. Where is the line? At least for you. Because everyone will say something different.
The fact that this document is open to interpretation means it definitely needs to be clarified. It's easy to say it's taken out of context but nobody can really explain what the proper context is. And let's face it it was written with a friggin feather.
The 2nd Amendment has been clarified 3 times by the Supreme Court, the 1939 Miller ruling, which established that arms that would be useful in a militia are what is protected by the 2nd Amendment. In 2008 when the Supreme Court ruled that the arms that would be useful in a militia are arms that are in common use. And in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled states and cities are not exempt from 2nd Amendment protections.
The document is perfectly clear, some people just don't like what it says.
I really do see both sides of the argument and I don't know what the answer is. I think the majority of people that want guns don't want them for the purpose that as outlined in the amendment. They want them either because they like them or because they like them and they want to protect themselves from others... not the government On the other side it's no secret that took control a nation the first step is to disarm it.
As I said I do see both sides and I really don't know what the final outcome should be
Can a gun save you from disease, starvation, poverty, corruption or propaganda? How about a nuke or a drone strike? It's not like American citizens haven't been murdered by their gov before.
A gun can save you from a lot of things. Just because it can't save you from a nuke doesn't make it useless. From poverty? Uhm, duh! Poverty means crime, and guns help stop crime. Corruption... again, crime. A car can't save you from any of those things either, yet somehow cars are still legal despite how many people they kill everyday.
@Kiran04 And if someone requires medication or extensive treatment for their life threatening illness and can't afford it are they supposed to stick up a pharmacy?
A nuke or a drone strike does render a gun useless. A car is a vehicle, a mode of transport, while a gun is a weapon. Cars are not designed to kill.
@NeglectedChild You keep acting like something has to be the solution for everything to be useful. It doesn't. A car won't save you from a life threatening illness either if you can't afford the medicine. What are you going to do, crash into the pharmacy and steal it?
And design is irrelevant. Intent is relevant. Just like the guy who stole a semi-truck and killed 71 people in under 120 seconds. No one designed the semi-truck to kill people, but he sure as hell made it work. I have guns that would be piss poor at killing people because they're designed for target shooting. They hold 1 round and have to be loaded through the breech, so even if your design argument was relevant, it doesn't even hold up for all guns.
Why should all law abiding citizens lose their freedom because evil exists in the world? You really think evil people won't find other ways of massacre even if you did somehow ban guns? Semi-trucks are already proven to be very effective.
@Kiran04 You've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that guns are useless. What I am saying is that a tyrannical and oppressive government can screw over it's people in ways in which guns are rendered useless as a means of defence. This is an extreme example but suppose a government were to nuke your house because they didn't like you. In that situation your guns can't save you from a nuke heading for your home.
Design is relevant, it relates to function. You can't compare a weapon of mass destruction to a vehicle.
That's why there are laws and regulations in place, laws and regulations restrict evil doers and can reduce fatalities like the ones we have seen. Less guns make people safer, having guns readily accessible makes not only homicide more likely, suicide is more likely and shootings by accident are more likely.
It's hard giving up your favourite toy, but if it's for a good cause like saving the lives of school children then that's a noble sacrifice to make.
No. The history of America is the history of the gun. Our largest advances have been made because of the gun, and we are only a country because of the gun. It's in the very foundation of our society, so you can't cut out one without cutting out the other. May as well try to take the concrete out of a buildings foundation and then still expect it to stand.
The 2nd amendment was not about guns for hunting and sport. The main reason for the second amendment was to allow the citizens to protect themselves from the government if it comes to that point..
Yes it is. I say yes do to the fact that weapons are getting more advanced and that we as people should not have the right to own "automatic weapons" but I am perfectly okay with people owning single fireing guns
I am okay with that do to the fact that you can hit fewer people. If you had an automatic weapon that did that I would be terrified cause no one needs that much fire power
In order to prevent tyranny, all citizens must have access to the same weapon technology that the government possesses.
If laws are put into place that ban assault rifles, then assault rifles must cease production entirely and must stay out of the hands of the state as well.
The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear and the Supreme Court has never suggested that it only applies to militia members, quite the opposite actually.
There was never a point in history when the 2nd Amendment was considered to only be a part of the militia, that's left wing revisionist history. If you don't believe me pull up the court rulings that say different.
If you really think black Americans open carrying is going to change the mind of conservatives, then you're crazy.
@gotc147 On the last point: that's exactly why when Reagan was governor they changed the laws in California.
On the first: It was considered a collective right or individual right deriving from the collective right as opposed to a purely individual right by most circuit courts prior to 2001.
In any case, its your country, just don't bring them into ours.
No. I'm sick of this gun debate B. S. Let's focus taking all guns out of the criminals hands and leave law abiding citizens the hell alone with their guns inculding assault rifles.
It's the criminals that are causing crimes and murder not the good citizens, so why keep harassing them about their damn guns?
And how do you relieve a criminal of his gun? Laws. What's making it difficult is that it's commonplace to own multiple guns in America. If you wanted to take all apples away from criminals, how would you locate said criminals? Everyone has apples, but some are apparently going to be illegal apples at some point. It's like finding a very particular needle in a stack of needles.
No wonder there still isn't any proper legislation.
To elaborate: you need laws to make it possible to take said guns away from said criminals. Otherwise it's theft, even if the police does it. There has to be some ground on which law enforcement can determine that someone is not allowed a gun and a criminal record is not the best way seeing as it comes after the crime.
People are not born criminal or law-abiding. The good guys-bad guys trope is just another version of identity politics in which the world is divided neatly into good and evil people. That is not how the world works. You can talk about good and evil actions, but that is about it. And that is my problem with the idea of the "responsible gun owner". Sure he's responsible - until the day he has a mental breakdown and murders his family. Or colleagues. Or classmates.
Yeah, I'd say in a functioning democracy people shouldn't have to be afraid of their government. But then again I don't know the situation in the US that well
Not really. You live in a country that has the least restrictions, that's how it should be. I hate seeing all of these new laws that are practically restricting our freedom, not even just the US but here in the UK. Just look at any legislation in any country in the west that is being passed and you'll see what I mean.
The time to do something about guns in the US is far too late, guns are everywhere. The only thing that can be done is restrictions.
That would mean freedom of speech is limited to quill and parchment and shouting distance and freedom of the press is limited to old school printing presses.
THINK about what you're going to say before you say it.
Like what @madhatters54 said Not outdated just too liberally used. Handguns and shotguns for self defense fine, rifles for hunting and recreation, cool (If you tell me an AR 15 is a rifle shut up, it uses an intermediate round in its most basic form. If the military doesn't classify that as a rifle round then why are you.) What's not cool are guns like the AR 15 that aren't good at self defense or hunting but are great for killing a whole bunch of unarmed people
Actually, the AR-15 is an excellent hunting AND home-defense weapon, falling as it does into the category of "scout carbine". Great saddle gun, too. Quite popular for everything from raccoon to deer. I might not hunt elk, or bear with it, but it's good for anything smaller, and MUCH easier to handle in the woods and high brush than, say, a shotgun or a long rifle. As for self-defense, it's and it's equivalents are the weapon of choice for the line soldier and the street cop. What makes you say it isn't?
@taleswapper an excellent hunting rifle? Coyotes sure, rabbits? Yeah, anythijg larger and I wouldn't trust a 5.56 to do it quickly enough to be humane. As for why a shotgun? Let me, put it this way, in my town Billerica Massachusetts which is rated as one if the safest in the country. Had a black bear jusr walk down a street where people were having a pool party. If the bear had attacked? A 5.56 would have taken a while, it would have died sure, but it would have also have had time to kill a couple of kids. A 12 gauge loaded with buckshot or slugs? The bear would be dead before anyone got seriously hurt. A 5.56 round is not full rifle sized, its intermediete larger than a pistol, smaller than a rifle. As for why handguns are better for everyday carry? Well that's obvious, its easier to carry a.38 or.45 all day than slug a full sized AR around. As for soldiers? Men are easy to put down. The advantages are having a 30 round mag of fmj gives a soldier the range they need
@taleswapper continued, However its also worth noting that when the marine corps knows they have to do house clearing and such, they prefer that at least one marine, usually on point carries a shotgun, because even 150 years after the invention of the shotgun shell, there is still nothing better for close quarters than a shotgun.
@taleswapper you may be good, but I'd rather be sure to get the job done, I wouldn't trust anythijg less than a full rifle round to put them down. Anything larger than a whitetail, I would prefer something like a.45-70
So, we've established that the AR15 IS an effective hunting tool for anything smaller than whitetail, and larger than a squirrel. That Both the military and the police find the round (5.56 NATO) useful a self-defense tool. So that puts paid to the argument that you originally made, that it was neither.
@taleswapper except it isn't There are a dozens different weapons that do it better and the police and military don't use it as a self defense weapon, they use it as an offensive weapon, a person defending their home is never going to need to put a man down 100 yards away
Well, "better" is a subjective evaluation; it has no metric. And all firearm use is offensive, it's not a shield. But you can use an offensive weapon in a defensive manner. It's quite common. You "defend" yourself by making the other guy incapable or unwilling to continue.
@taleswapper there is a difference, engaging insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan is an offensive. Protecting your home amd family is home defense
No, the 2ns amendment has always been abouy citizens protecting themselves from the goverment. You think 900 dead from rifles is bad? Try 1,500 a day from an out of control government.
There's literally no chance in hell the citizens of the US could stand against the US government considering how overfunded it is. Unless you allow citizens access to all sorts of super high tech, super dangerous military technology (and tbh not even then), which I would hope you recognize as the idiocy it is.
@cipher42 illiterate 17 years olds hiding in caves amd riding donkeys seem to be doing a damn good job standing against the military so your assertion is laughably false.
Sources? Because I rather suspect the situation your referring to has some rather significant differences from the hypothetical situation we're discussing. I doubt what is going on in your example is an active overthrow of a government, which is what were talking about here. Holding a small area/force against foreign troops is pretty motherfucking different from actively trying to seize control of an area from a group native to that territory.
I said the 2nd amendment is the citizen's protection against an out of controle goverment.
You said that the citizens could not stand up the U. S. military.
I said thats laughable becuase the insergents in Afganistan are doing just that in smaller numbers and not anywhere nearly as well armed as the American public.
So the reasons for creating the 2nd Amendment was valid in 1791, its valid today and for as long as we are governed by men not angles the 2nd ammendment will always be valid.
And as I explained, the folks in Afghanistan are defending a territory where they're on their home turf, not attacking/trying to gain control over an area already controlled by a native force. Those are completely different forms of warfare. Plus, there's the fact of how cyberwarfare would play in. In the US, the US government has far more tools for surveilling and otherwise controlling the public already in place than exist in Afghanistan.
You think American citizens wouldn't be defending their home territory?
Also survalience is a large complex structure that takes a lot of smart and hard working people to maintain. It wouldn't take but a small percentage of the country to break that.
One fact about the American Revolution people dont understand is only 30% of the country wanted independence. Among those that 30% only 10% lifted a finger to do anything. Among the 10% less than 2% were invloved enough to make any difference. This is proven out over and over again with uprisings around the world, it really does not take much, usually only 2% with access to means of fighting back against tyranny.
However as long as the 2nd ammendment is upheld with orginal intent, thats a road we will never have to travel down. So yes I will take the school shooting to save the country from ever having death camps.
I think such defense is useless. What has to happen to stop government abuse is an overthrow of the government, for which you need to ATTACK, not judt defend.
Ya I think you underestimate the capacity of our surveillance. Recall that the US military is astoundingly overfunded and absolutely has the resources for this shit. They managed to surveill people back in the 50s during the red scare pretty fucking effectively (an era of crazy government abuses and a distinct lack of armed resistance from the people) I think nowadays with all the advances in tech theyve made it'd be pretty damn easy for them to keep track of folks.
Also, fucking hilarious how you think the citizens of the US (which, as I noted have something of a history of NOT standing up against horrible government abuses) could overthrow the government which has the most overfunded military in the world and plenty of practice effectively fighting and surveilling other countries.
Cipher42 do you think our telecommunication systems are magic? Seriously do you think they are magic? These systems are unimaginably complex with endless weak points. I have several family members who maintain those systems and if any one of them screw up their job then huge sections of the system goes down. It wouldn't take a 2% rebellion from telecom workers to completely crash the system, more like 0.001%
Next up are you in a military family? Because I am. I have lived on army bases, I know that over funded military is 50% medical expenses. I also know the kids that are put at the controls of our military. Its the best most powerful military machine ever created but it is in no way omnipotent.
You can buy propoganda or you can look behind the vail and see the silly men pulling the levers. Just understand that those silly men don't like being pointed out and without the 2nd Ammendment many would turn from silly to murderous.
As for americans not standing up to goverment violence lets take a look at this.
1830' trail of tear, the natives did not have any guns
Post civil war south - blacks had a very hard time getting guns
Japaneses interment durring WW2- again the japaneses didn't have guns.
Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Routeenly got jailed before he was granted a concealed carry licence.
Are you seeing a pattern?
Who did have guns? WW2 vets in 1946 when they had to seige a jail in Tennesse to extract the corrupt local mayor and the towns police so the election could be counted properly.
The Bundy Ranch when the BLM tried to seize the ranch and cattle.
Hundreds of thousands of people every year warding off home invaders.
@cipher42 You're assuming the US military, which is composed of the citizenry, would listen to such orders from the "government". The fact is, it wouldn't. that very "overfunded" military would turn Praetorian Guard and shoot up DC themselves if the Feds ordered them to attack targets in the U. S. Because such orders would be blatantly illegal.
@taleswapper what, the "government" and "overfunded" quotes? Sure, I said that. But I'm operating off the premise (which he set) that the people would need to defend themselves against the military, which of course requires that the military is against the people.
@cipher42 "But I'm operating off the premise (which he set) that the people would need to defend themselves against the military, which of course requires that the military is against the people."
No, he set the condition that the people were acting against the government, not the military.
@taleswapper if the people require guns to stand against the governnent, then the government obviously has a military force for the people to stand against. Or else the military could handle the overthrow and there is no need for a right to bear arms.
@cipher42 BZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing. Actually, most popular uprisings are against the police, not the military. And in this country, the cops are usually UNDER funded and over worked.
@taleswapper but if cops are underfunded and the military is overfunded, and if the military would fight for the people and the cops would fight against them, there is again no need for the populous as a whole to own guns.
@cipher42 *facepalms* The military is PART of the people, and the reason they're effective is because they owned guns when they WEREN'T in the military, but were non-military civilians. Quit trying to separate them.
@taleswapper again, the military is overfunded as shit, and part of that goes toward training. There is absolutely no need for civilians to have weapns training prior to entering the military- thus why the military recruits even in high schools where there's no fucking chance any of the kids own guns.
@cipher42 My nieces, for example, are trained hunters, and crack shots, and have been since long before they were out of high school. They owned their own rifles. Your argument is false to fact.
@taleswapper Yikes. Regardless, your point about the military being the people has yet to be proved. Again, you just claimed the SCOTUS backs you on this. Prove it.
@cipher42 No. you're just trolling, and I have no need to feed you. If your understand of both US history and the military is so poor that you need something dso basic "proven" to you, then you have no business in the discussion in the first place.
@taleswapper Okay, so you really just can't support your argument at this point. If your views are so right and good and true, why do you try and wiggle out of actually having to prove them so? Should be easy, if your views are so obviously right as you seem to think they are.
@cipher42 Because your request for "proof" is a red herring, and I'm not going to indulge you. When you come up with a reasonable request for information, i'll provide it. I have no use for trolls.
@taleswapper my request for proof is in line with logical reasoning. What, are you saying we should just trust whatever people say without checking their sources? Well, I suppose that explains why you have the views you do.
@taleswapper so I actually googled the case I mentioned, and turns out not onky was I right, but that actually pretty solidly contradics the argument you're making.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, "
@cipher42 Yup. You proved I was right. Told you you could do your own homework. You did notice the words "unconnected with the militia", right? you don't need to actually be in the militia to own a gun; it's a right EVERYONE has.
@taleswapper unconnected means that the basis for the right is not to do with the mililita clause. That is in no way the argument you were making- you were saying everyone has the right to bear arms because everyone is the militia.
Right, this is gonna make me about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit, but you don't need guns in this day and age. You're not fighting any wars in the US and there's no-one out to kill you just for settling in their territory.
The constitution and bill of rights is supposed to stand the test of time, not change with the times. Also ARs don't fire 600+RPM, only the M16/M4 platforms. I don't even think with bump stocks they reach that high of a Cyclic Rate of Fire.
@gotc147 By the clear language of the amendment the 2nd amendment is clearly protecting the right to own guns for the militia, not for "everyone". This whole nonsense that everyone has a constitutional right to own a gun personally is just bullshit.
@Soteris "This whole nonsense that everyone has a constitutional right to own a gun personally is just bullshit." Well, SCOTUS clearly disagrees with you. What are your credentials, again?
@taleswapper You mean the current SCOTUS. I mean this interpretation is only from 2008 you know and there has been plenty of SCOTUS before that with different opinions.
@taleswapper Oh please. Do you really think there won't be any ramification of having the Supreme court judges be appointed by the president, who in turn wants the supreme court to vote along party lines?
Well you apparently don't know how to read if you think the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia. The Heller ruling had a reading lesson in it to help people understand it. I'd tell you to take a look but like I said, you don't know how to read.
@gotc147 Yeah right. As if you know anything about the scholarly debate about the 2nd amendment. Also what you just said its factually incorrect like for example: U. S. v. Cruikshank
The Cruikshank ruling said that the 2nd Amendment is a natural right, not something given by government and is not dependant on the Constitution for its existence.
Strike one. Let me guess your next example is the 1939 Miller ruling?
@gotc147 U. S. v. Cruikshank said that the 2nd amendment did not give any 2nd amendment rights to people and was only there to prevent the federal government for encroaching on people. This means that they said the 2nd amendment did not give anyone a constitutional right and it also did not apply to the state or individuals. This also means that the state does not have to recognize the 2nd amendment either and can crack down as hard as they want as long as congress is not involved.
SMH well like I said dude, you don't know how to read. You basically said what I said you just came to a completely different, and illogical conclusion.
You desperately need to take some reading comprehension classes.
No, you read the ruling and misunderstood it to mean something different from what it means.
If you were correct in your analyzation, then the 1939 Miller ruling would have gone much differently, especially since nobody was there to argue on Miller's behalf.
@gotc147 SCOTUS: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government"
"This is not alright granted by the Constitution": correct, it is granted by all means creator.
"Neither is it in any way dependant on that instrument for it's existence": correct, the Constitution is a legal barrier to legal policy, if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed, the right to bear arms would still exist because it is granted by man's creator, not the government.
"It shall not he infringed by Congress": correct, because Congress is prohibited from infringing on gun rights under the 2nd Amendment.
"No other effect than to rest3ict the national government": correct, for the same reason as the previous line.
None of that says possession of firearms is only permitted to citizens who are part of a militia.
How do you read the line "has no other effect than to restrict the national government" and get the idea that the national government can ban guns to anybody not in the militia?
@gotc147 If you dont remember this was all because you said that no SCOTUS had ruled against the current ruling, which if we remove all the bullshit you just spewed out this one definitely goes against.
How do you read "has no other effect than to restrict the national government" and believe that statement means it gives the national government authority to implement restrictions?
@gotc147 Never said it did. It does however give the states that authority. Again though I only mentioned that case because you said there was no SCOTUS that contradicted the current interpretation.
Are we not talking about federal legislation and is Washington DC not a federally controlled jurisdiction?
And you mentioned that case because you thought it contradicted the Heller ruling from 2008, it doesn't. Cruickshank said that the 2nd Amendment is a natural right that exists whether the text of the Amendment is in the Constitution or not, and that the federal government cannot restrict it. It said absolutely nothing of whether it was an individual right or a collective right connected to militia service.
The only part of Cruickshank that has been overruled is the holding that the bill of rights does not apply to the states, but that is due to a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, not the 2nd and that reinterpretation was in 1937 with the De Jonge vs Oregon ruling, not in 2008 with the DC vs Heller ruling or even 2010 with the McDonald vs Chicago ruling.
@gotc147 Saying that owning guns is a natural right and saying that the 2nd amendment gives people a constitutional right to own guns is not even remotely the same thing.
To start with U. S. v. Cruikshank only focuses on the federal government and says nothing about individual rights or militias, which by extension means its completely 100% contrary to the 2008 Heller ruling. There is not a single thing that they have in common except that it prevents the federal government.
Where as they said the right to own a gun is natural, Heller said its an individual right granted by the constitution. Not he same... not even remotely the same..
Oh my god dude... Have you never read the Declaration of Independence? "That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
All men posses the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights simply by existing. Free speech, right to bear arms, due process, search and seizure... These are not given by governments, they are given by God (or whoever you believe your creator to be) and having them is not dependent on the existence of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You could repeal the 2nd Amendment, but that doesn't take away anybody's natural, god-given right to keep and bear arms.
THAT is what Cruickshank said.
The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, 3rd, 4th and the rest, "give" nothing, they ENSHRINE.
@gotc147 Well first of all the declaration of independence is not a legal document and as such does not have any effect on the 2nd amendment. Also the Declaration of Independence makes the declaration that governments are created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods/creators.
Also again, appealing to a natural order of things and interpreting the constitution is completely different. You can argue that the results are the same but that is not because they had the same definition of the 2nd amendment but because one believed in something else which gave a similar result independently from the 2nd amendment.
@gotc147 The declaration of independence is simply a statement made by congress that they think voiced the minds of its citizens. It does not have any legal properties. If you dont even know this then I dont know where to start with you.
Of course it had legal properties, you dolt. Itr dissolved the relationship between the colonies and the Crown. I'd say that is a legal effect, don't you?
@taleswapper Actually it does. For example the declaration of independence is only ever brought up in court as support for other legal documents but never as if it has any legal power in and of itself.
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U. S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court stated:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
there are more than a hundred example it being cited in SCOTUS cases alone.
@taleswapper don't bother, this guy said the Declaration of Independence was an announcement by Congress, even though Congress didn't exist when the Declaration was written.
@taleswapper Again, that is just reading a legal document with the "spirit" of the declaration of independence. Its not because the declaration of independence has any legal merit in and of itself.
I know this may annoy people I don't care I wouldn't mind looser gun laws in the UK but if it would cost the lives of children then I wouldn't care children are our only hope they should not have to be afraid of being killed just going to school
Right, so the US constitution is also only applicable to manually operated mechanical printing presses and ink and paper, not digital communications I suppose?
Why does interpreting the rights granted by a particular amendment as extending to a specific type of modern technology in a specific context mean that the same must be true of all amendments for all modern technologies? You've got yourself a false equivalency there buddy.
It's not outdated, but it also doesn't specify the types of arms citizens can bear. Rifles? SAWs? RPGs? ICBMs? I'm a gun owner, but I don't like assault weapons being the hands of civilians.
Assault weapons are FULL AUTO idiot. Take a gun class before spewing MEDIA LIES. The second amendment gives CITIZENS the power to overthrow our government!
If you think you will be able to defend yourself and family with a flint lock musket in today’s society you are sadly mistaken. Time to buy something a little more modern.
No more than you really need a car, but liberty is not about need, now is it? Do you really need a TV? A computer? Pizza? Soda? Your question is utterly stupid.
And yet people kill one another ALL THE TIME, with cars. Convenient how you left that part of my argument out so you could suit your own. Do you need a knife then? Fertilizer? Draino? Baseball bats? People kill one another with those too. You also left out the part about liberty, because you and I both know liberty isn't about need. YOUR argument is the ridiculous one, especially since you had to edit mine in order to even make yours possible.
But can you kill a person with a knife when you're standing 100 meters away from them? When I got my licence I had to sit a test just so I could learn to drive and then I set a driving test. My car has to be registered, licensed, insured and road worthy. I can loose my licence if I do the wrong thing.
@Goodwife You can steal a car just like you can steal a gun. Someone killed 71 people with a stolen semi-truck in France in less than two minutes. You don't need to be able to kill someone from 100 yards away. Do you need a semi-truck? He didn't have to get that truck registered. He didn't have to get a license. He didn't have to get an inspection or anything of the sort. He stole it and ran down dozens of people at a time. Your laws, regulations, and restrictions mean NOTHING to criminals. It doesn't matter how many you keep slapping on the books.
I do not see making guns illegal and trying to take them away as a solution. I believe a lot of people will fight back. On top of that every home (house, apartment, trailer, townhouse, condominium etc) would have to be searched. Every shed and garage would have to be searched. Every industrial and commercial building would have to be searched. Every vehicle would have to be searched. Every boat, ship, yacht, personal watercraft would have to be searched. Every plane, helicopter, chopper, jet would have to be searched. Treehouses and forts would have to be searched. The land would have to be searched. Water would have to be searched. People would have to be searched. Anything else I may have forgotten would need to be searched. Lets say every gun was confiscated there still will be things that can be used as weapons. Examples: knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, crowbars, axes, hachets, hammers, chainsaws, shovels, lighters, etc. Still can kill people or at least injure them but not
They won't. Too many dumbass ill informed people to make happy. So if thry change it, it will just be for making stupid people happy so they continue to receive votes to stay in their government chair and collect that $400k+ paycheck a year.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
61 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions