Who cares what the Founders' intent was? If the second amendment no longer protects more than it allows harm, then it needs to go. Just like the parts about slaves being worth 3/5 of a vote and the amendment institution prohibition.That's an interpretation that is left to the Supreme Court. You can express your opinion, but I can hardly imagine that you yourself are the final authority on Constitutional intent.
Not for home defense against your neighbor? There was no Constitutional provison for a police force. Does that mean the correct interpretation was that the founding fathers desired us to not defend ourselves? No, I think it would be common sense to think that a firearm is the perfect tool for self defense. Perhaps they didn't envision a society that has lost common sense.
There are several artifacts in your house that can be relatively easy modified to become "mass killing machines". If someone has will and intent, the will find a way.
There are several artifacts in your house that can be relatively easy modified to become "mass killing machines". If someone has will and intent, the will find a way.
Ever heard of pipe bombs? Apparently you missed "will and intent" part.As evidenced by all the mass murders being committed with innocuous household items.
Ever heard of pipe bombs? Apparently you missed "will and intent" part.
Who cares what the Founders' intent was? If the second amendment no longer protects more than it allows harm, then it needs to go. Just like the parts about slaves being worth 3/5 of a vote and the amendment institution prohibition.
Do you know what American society would be like if all 2nd amendment rights were abolished? Because I sure don't.
But please, if you're smart enough to know, inform us.
Of course I don't 'know,' because no one can predict the future. No one 'knew' what America would be like without slavery or after abolishing the 18th amendment, either, but they decided that the costs of keeping them were too high and the expected cost of abolishing them were lower.
I'd suspect that without the 2nd amendment, you'd continue to have handguns in homes and hunting rifles with some licensing process remain legal, and over a decade or two's worth of mass shootings, you might see more restrictions on assault rifles, extended clips, etc. The gun lobby has too much money and influence for anything drastic to happen in the medium-term.
We need to change our culture, more or less guns will not help anyone or anything. We are fundamentally broken as a country, and it has nothing to do with guns.
Oh and FYI in 10 states guns ARE more dangerous than cars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-deaths-exceed-motor-v_b_1536793.html
But violence in America is the problem, not guns.
I have stated that many times here. We have a violence problem in America, but the gun has become the number 1 option in that violence.
and heart disease is the number one cause of death each year. should we outlaw fatty foods?
what about cancer? ban all hazardous chemicals?
Do you know what American society would be like if all 2nd amendment rights were abolished? Because I sure don't.
But please, if you're smart enough to know, inform us.
Slavery is a blatant violation of human rights. The right to own a firearm is not.
I believe its the right to bear arms. Why does that specifically have to mean a firearm? A tazer, a gun, a portable missile launcher, and a sarin gas sprayer are all arms for example.
The senseless killings will continue until enough people pull their heads out of their asses.
Who cares what the Founders' intent was? If the second amendment no longer protects more than it allows harm, then it needs to go. Just like the parts about slaves being worth 3/5 of a vote and the amendment institution prohibition.
Who cares what the Founders' intent was? If the second amendment no longer protects more than it allows harm, then it needs to go. Just like the parts about slaves being worth 3/5 of a vote and the amendment institution prohibition.
And what benefit would this have? Other than to destroy the gun industry, an industry which employs millions?
In most areas in the United States where such legislation has passed, strict gun control has no correlation with gun crime rate. What makes you think it will effect the rate at which mass shootings occur? Why should gun control policy be solely based upon the goal of reducing the number of mass shootings?
Have you, in your life, ever met a gun owner?
The comparison to slavery is inane. Slavery is a blatant violation of human rights. The right to own a firearm is not.
Of course having widespread guns allows augmented harm beyond the harm that would occur without guns. Don't get me wrong, guns aren't the root of our problem, but addressing the poverty at the root of most gun violence is a lot more difficult (though I'd absolutely be for serious efforts to address it). We could live with tighter gun control without stripping away all rights, though, and that slide along the spectrum of options available to us as a society seem to me far more advantageous. People love to think in absolute terms, but "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy for a reason. Wanting people to generally be vaccinated doesn't mean I want to force-vaccinate those with serious religious objections. Wanting fewer, less destructive guns in America isn't asking for SWAT raids into the homes of every gunowner.The 2nd doesn't allow, cause, or protect harm. It protects citizens rights to defend themselves with firearms. That a few lunatics use them in crimes doesn't mean that the millions of law abiding citizens should lose their rights.
Im not american, im in canada, and the idea that gun control is about controlling me is the most ridiculous statement i've ever heard. I feel free as a bird up here, never felt threatened at all by my government just like all the other western nations dont feel threatened at all. The USA is the only developed nation where people have this insane outlook & parania about need guns to rise up against their government. Have violent uprisings worked anywhere in the middle east? The peaceful ones were the successful ones most of the time. And besides in this day & age where our governments have tanks & jetfighters, what are ur small arms gonna do?
I DONT want anyone to have guns, i simply dont trust the avg person with owning a gun. Simple as that.
There's a clear and legal path for the opponents of the 2nd Amendment to take to change the Amendment. Why do they always try to use underhanded and illegal methods of changing the law?
A fair point, but on the other hand, the 2nd amendment is about well-regulated militias, not hunting and shooting ranges. It's all this "Founder's intent" nonsense that we stretch out to every possible issue that gives that right, and that gives the right to abortion, privacy, and a bunch of other hot-button issues. We should really be addressing all of these by the legislative process. It's perfectly viable to argue that we should be more narrowly interpreting the 2nd amendment to better meet today's America, since there's no "one true" reading of the lines.
I DONT want anyone to have guns, i simply dont trust the avg person with owning a gun. Simple as that.