When the U. S. constitution was ratified that was over 200 years ago and in a totally different society than we are living in now in the modern world.
Back then the guns were muskets only firing one round per shot, now we have guns that can fire dozens of rounds within short seconds and literally anyone with a few hundred bucks in their pockets can have access to guns.
Should the 2nd amendment of the U. S. constitution be amended to fit the modern-day society for our protection?
Right and the whole idea is to keep a ready bodied militia to defend the homeland which means they will require modern equipment. And because it's about fighting both foreign AND domestic tyranny, absolutely not. So yes you can get access "for a few hundred bucks" but to do so legally? Totally depends on the state for one. But you aren't buying military grade weapons at "a few hundred bucks". Especially when you factor ammo and maintenance supplies, taxes, etc.
I feel that if people dont agree with what the nation was founded on and what it's supposed to stay founded on and symbolize they can always leave. As I say time and again Canada is a stones throw away and the UK is just a swim. You have pretty much every country as virtually gun free for the most part. Go there and stop trying to change it here for the people who have fought to preserve this right as well as the others. Besides what kind of scenario are people picturing when they decide to ban or take away the guns? Do the people here honestly believe that's going to happen peacefully? If they do they're very naive.
What we need is better mental health care, FREE healthcare. It's really the only way like it or not. Stop all the overseas spending, shrink military spending a bit, stop getting involved in foreign wars. Tell me something; if we hadn't gone into Iraq, Iran, gotten involved with Libya and Syria, continued to keep funding Israel, help Haiti, the Ukraine, and parts of Latin America, would we still be having the mental health issues we have today if the money had been put into the research, facilities, programs, etc to help the troubled youth and stressed out workforce in this country? If we stopped pointing fingers at one another, had an honest conversation and about where we as a society went wrong to produce so many violent and/or disenfranchised people, people could we have prevented a lot of this? THAT is where the problem lies 100%. People want to blame an object instead of looking in the mirror and saying "Okay we f*cked up and we need to get our sh*t together."
Problem is this country doesn't believe in providing free decent healthcare for its population.
Pray you don't come in contact with some deranged idiot and catches you be total surprise and puts a slug right throw your head in less than a second while you are trying to buy milk.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I'm not. I carry a gun anyways, two sometimes. And I have training to deal with it, which isn't hard to get tbh. On top of that I support free and decent healthcare. Both sides honestly do NOT. The dems say pretty things and give sweet promises, but they're as into it as the GOP on healthcare reform at the end of the day. Just throwing enough bone to keep hungry mouths hungry enough to beg for more. BUT if I do get shot in the head with a slug it's hella better then getting gutted with a bowie knife! As a survivor of 2 home invasions I've already experience the threat of both a knife and a gun respectively and both time stopped it with a gun. I like living, I like protecting myself, that's why I carry a gun and train. It's that simple honestly.
It can't be proven that guns cause crime or that more guns = more crime or violence. In fact, there is evidence that where gun ownership if restricted, there is more gun violence.
Gun control advocates believe that restricting citizen access to common firearms is the only solution. But where is their evidence? Mass murders take place in "gun free" zones. The cities with the strictest gun-control law have the highest rates of murders. Should we surrender a fundamental, self evident, unalienable, natural right on the word of politicians, celebrities and ideologues?
Instead of attacking the rights that people already have, why don't any of the pontificators ever talk about the actual causes of crime? What forces cause a person to snap? It couldn't have anything to do with our culture, could it? Yeah, that's a complicated subject that nobody, especially the powers that be, want to address.
Even still it's important to note some facts.
Up to 2020, annual firearm-related homicides hoovered below 16,000. To put that number in perspective, over 40,000 people die from accidental falls, poisonings and motor vehicle accidents every year. So 16,000 isn't a very big number when compared to all causes of death.
Firearm-related homicides rose to around 20,000 since the beginning of the covid panic and "emergency measures". Any correlation?
The FBI says that 80% of firearm related homicides are gang related. So even if we use the current 20,000, it means that 4,000 murderers were not gang related. Nevertheless, most of those were related to robberies and other crimes.
There are 330 million citizens, 66 million of whom are under the age of 18. You can count on your hands how many have committed mass murder with a gun.
And out of over 80 million legal gun owners with over 300 million firearms, how many have used guns to commit crimes?
Maybe instead of passing even more, useless anti-gun legislation that only seems to exacerbate the problem, we should try to figure out what turns a person into a pressure cooker that is going to explode.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
1 y
No you need to seriously start looking at sensible gun laws. Like 1. Who is allowed to own a gun? 2. What is the purpose of owning that firearm ie hunting/home defence/ sport shooting/target practice? 3. Is an AR15 that shoots 5.56 rounds from a 30 round magazine suitable for home defense? 4. How much ammunition is appropriate to own? 5. Should semi-auto rifles and shotguns be legal? 6. Is the gun owner legally responsible for their guns? 7. Are the guns stored in a safe place? 8. Are police able at any time enter a gun owners home to inspect the storage of the ammunition and guns? 9. What ammunition is to be used for home defense, self defence, hunting and so on? 10. How much ammunition should a gun magazine be able to hold? 5 rounds? 10 rounds? 30 rounds? 100 rounds? 11. How do you get a gun license? Do you have to attend safety and shooting training in whatever role you intend to have a gun for ie hunting, home defence, personel defence etc. Do you have to pass a gun safety and competency test before owning a gun just like with driving tests?
In the US it is legal with a special licence to own a fully automatic machine gun but is very difficult to get and very expensive. Perhaps gun ownership in the US should be more like that.
I live in Britain and gun ownership is allowed but extremely expensive and are not allowed to used for home defence. There's so much to go through that's its not worth it. There are certain rules. I'm with the RAF regiment and having done some shooting with the SA80 I can say that 5.56 is not an appropriate round for home defence or self defence, nor is a semi automatic version of an SA80 with a 30 round magazine appropriate to be in the hands of untrained teenagers and people incapable of being responsible for a firearm.
1
1 Reply
Opinion Owner
1 y
12. Does the person have any criminal history, severe mental health problems or are on any anti-depressants or other medications that mean they should not own a gun? 13. Does a gun owner have gun insurance before purchasing a gun?
Amending the constitution for any reason is nearly impossible. As divided as the country is politically, when are you ever going to get 2/3 of each house of Congress or 2/3 of state legislatures to propose an amendment and 3/4 of the states to ratify it? On any issue?
Why is this always the one and only tunnel vision response by liberals when there is a mass shooting? The vast majority of homicides are committed by handguns not AR-15s by the way.
This issue is much more complicated then knee jerk reactions. The Texas shooter was displaying lots of warning signs prior to the massacre including cutting up his own face with a knife because “he thought it looked cool”. Nobody did anything.
He WAS universally background checked when he bought his rifle. He’s gotten no criminal history.
I am actually open to doing required psychological evaluations of people who want to buy high capacity weapons. But banning them outright will do nothing but disarm law abiding citizens and empower criminals (and the government). Also I believe someone as screwed up as the Texas shooter would of figured out a way to cause mass carnage even if he wasn’t able to buy AR-15s. The Columbine kids were building bombs including a propane tank that (thank God) didn’t detonate but if it did it would of likely killed over 50 people.
This problem is WAY more complex than stupid gun control knee jerk reactions.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
1 y
um, no. That's a slippery slope that leads to tyranny, my dude. "It's for your own good" -- says the government as they beat the shit out of you for not wearing a mask OUTSIDE at the beach in Australia.
"It's for your own good" says the government as they arrest a woman at home in front of her children for posting her own opinions online that were not a threat to anyone, but offensive as free speech cannot be allowed.
"It's for your own good" says the government as they shut down your family-owned grocery store during the pandemic but allow big box chains to remain open.
"It's for your own good" says the government as they force you to be marked, showing either compliance or non-compliance to their authoritarian regime.
"It's for your own good" says the government as they stop allowing "non-compliant" people to enter grocery stores to buy food for their families and clothing stores to clothe their children.
"It's for your own good" says the government as they march you off to special "camps" for the sick, from which you may or may not return.
There's a reason we didn't end up like Australia during the pandemic, and the right to bear arms is it. Totalitarian government was TRYING to literally come knocking at our doors. Remember how they wanted to send government reps to knock on your door and "encourage" people to get the vax? Because I do.
The 2nd Amendment clearly says that it should be a "well regulated" militia of the people. In order to be well regulated, we must be allowed to keep and bear arms that are sufficient enough to defend our free state from a corrupt government. That's all there is to it.
"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."
It doesn't say anything about individuals being able to own weapons for "self defense". It's about the people of the United States being able to protect our nation from foreign invaders.
Since the 70s, the gun lobby has been perverting the meaning to boost their profits.
It's time to clarify that sentence so there's no confusion.
Cannons, private war ships, explosives, rockets, early machine guns, and volley pistols (multi-barreled hand guns that fired several projectiles at once), all pre-date the writing of the US Constitution, and were codified by the 2nd amendment. It already IS amended to fit modern day society as far as case law is concerned.
“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~Samuel Adams
Obviously an armed public has a cost, but one of the first things Hitler, Stalin and Mao did, is disarm the public. The carnage that followed totaled in the tens of millions.
With all the division in society right now, do you really think disarming the public would end well? How'd that go in the Soviet Union? As I recall basically any successful person was murdered, and yet more people starved to death after production stopped. Not really an outcome that we should strive to emulate.
There's a good reason the second amendment is still on the books. It's so we don't have to relive those deeper insanities of the past.
The 2nd Amendment is fine, the issue us the way it has been interpreted over time. It was created to ensure that government would not confiscate an individual's guns, because that's what the Britudh did during the American Revolution. It was never intended to mean that people can have whatever kind of guns they want, yet that's the way it's now interpreted.
If anything, it is more applicable today than before. Powerful people wish to disown the people so the people have no way to fight oppression and they can have total control like the control that North Korea has.
There are so many false flag operations by the USA. Most countries have false flags but the USA is extreme. Such event used to happen twice in a century. Now they are happening every month; more than 100 times as often. No intelligent and logical person believes people are that different from the past. Therefore, the only explanation is they are false flag operations by powerful people in favor of gun control. That is most likely, people high in the government that wish to disarm to disarm the public. Also, the government controls the investigations to make certain that the truth about the false flag is never revealed.
And even back then, you could buy whole BRACES of pistols and fire a dozen shots without needing to reload, or get a cannon that could sweep down dozens of people with one sufficiently large ball (the Byzantines ignoring that is how the Turks hook Constantinople). Less has changed than you think.
Didn't the turks drag their ships over land to avoid the giant chain then put put their ships into the golden horn from their they attacked the lighter sea walls of constantinople to finally get in?
@Redhead999 Yep. They hit the city from three sides, basically simultaneously, after bombardinf them with over 5,000 cannon shots. It was pretty much the end of relying on castle walls as a sole defense. The fighting was brutal, and mild only in comparison to the horrors of the fourth crusade.
It probably doesn't even need to be. Possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is already illegal in the US. Plenty of individual states also ban other weapons, such as machine guns and "destructive devices" (hand grenades, tank shells, etc).
Since it is clearly already accepted that there is some limit to the types of weapon that are protected by the 2nd amendment, it should just be a question of where exactly to draw the line.
This is a fragmented, low-trust society entering severe economic chaos called stagflation. Police enforcement is uneven, poor, and slow. There are more guns than people and criminals will violate gun laws to keep their guns. I wouldn’t want law abiding people to be at their mercy when things get desperate.
Doesn't mean to ban guns but to have measures in which is difficult to get a gun and background checks are heavily impactful instead of the weak background checks we have now in some states like Texas which is super easy for anyone to get a gun legally in no time.
I personally believe that more thorough background checks need to be a thing as well as a license and training classes. I LOVE guns and we can keep all the 30rd,100rd, ar 15, ak47s, but it doesn't hurt to at least have a form of safety when it comes to buying a firearm.
10.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
The 2nd Amendment assures that citizens will be able to maintain a well armed militia. This is protection not just from criminals but also from the government itself. Technology has advanced not just for citizens.
nope, when i was 10 everyone had semi automatics and guess what... no problem. the problems arose when we started encouraging single parenthood and diversity
Mass school shootings or mass random shootings started to ramp up big around a decade ago.
I don't remember mass random school shootings or random mass shootings growing up except one in Columbine when I was like 12 years old and one in Virginia Tech in 2007.
Now mass random shootings happen at least a couple times a year.
@Agagagagaga: The graph is very telling but keep in mind mass shootings is defined as 3 or more people getting shot at a particular moment typically it involves night club parking lot shootouts and gang related stuff
Now is if you are minding your own business not involved in any sort of criminal activity and still get gunned down at random by a mass shooter.
Nope. It's the gun owners responsibility to secure their own weapons. Anything that happens while the gun is under their name should take full responsibility for the damages.
2. your goofy ideal gun laws don't apply to actual criminals.
Yes. I agree. It needs to be reformed to fit with the modern times. Also, does Ben Shapiro really expect people to believe that we need guns to defend ourselves from an inevitable government tyranny.
Constitutional law would deal with what the case law on the 2nd Amendment says. You're talking about whether certain types of firearms or ammo would be allowed or how they'd be regulated. That's not a constitutional issue.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Should the 2nd amendment of the U. S. constitution be amended to fit the modern-day society for our protection?
Superb Opinion