Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[Paladin3]

I don't think any sane person would argue that the amendment pertains only to a certain class of firearms, and certainly not to one that is no longer in use.

I still love to shoot black powder guns for fun, but I understand your point.

 

[Paladin3]

Wanting to own a gun when it's empirically a negative health risk is cause for concern.

Also, what is free about this society?

I could say the same about drugs, alcohol and lots of other things. Owning scissors makes it more likely you will hurt yourself with them compared to living in a scissor free home. Anything can be dangerous if misused or when an accident happens. And, remember, 99.99%+ of all guns are never used to hurt anyone legally or illegally. Not to mention the whole 2A thing.

Can we outlaw smoking to save lives? That's far more of a negative health risk and not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere. My parents smoked in the home and in the car until I was 10, and I see the same behavior all the time. Don't you care about those kids?

I'm not trying to minimize the death of a single person from gun violence, but I disagree that banning just a few more guns or passing just a few more laws will put a dent in the problem.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

I could say the same about drugs, alcohol and lots of other things. Owning scissors makes it more likely you will hurt yourself with it compared to not owning a pair. Anything can be dangerous if enough folks misuse it. Remember, 99.99%+ of all guns are never used to hurt anyone legally or illegally.

How many die in cars every year?

 

[soundforbjt]

How many die in cars every year?

Let me know when you drive your gun to work, I wantt to see that.

 

[compuwiz1]

Let me know when you drive your gun to work, I wantt to see that.

You're a moroff.

 

[Paladin3]

Let me know when you drive your gun to work, I wantt to see that.

What about The Bible? I have no use for one (you can't even drive it to work) and it's used by nuts to justify violence and murder all the time. Can we just ban freedom of religion?

 

[Paladin3]

How many die in cars every year?

Not sure if serious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

"The table below shows the motor vehicle fatality rate in the United States by year from 1899 through 2016. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2016 data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day."

But this in no way means every single injury or death from gun violence isn't a tragedy we need to do our best to prevent.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Can we just ban freedom of religion?

Uh... you might want to be sure of that. I don't want to be forced into your religion as it sucks.

If you try to get rid of me freedoms of religions, I'll blow your knee caps out I swear to the constitution I do.

 

[Veliko]

I could say the same about drugs, alcohol and lots of other things.

Not in the context of a discussion about guns you can't.

 

[compuwiz1]

Not in the context of a discussion about guns you can't.

Really? Whose rule is that?

 

[Veliko]

Really? Whose rule is that?

The general rule that is followed when having a sensible discussion.

 

[Puffnstuff]

So we're saying some disabilities (if we want to call them such), mean one must be denied a right? Does level of control of the condition matter? Does being "at risk" warrant denial?

(I'm not specifically arguing with you, just trying to better flesh out the discussion because I think it's deeply complex)

Keeping mental health issues in context, if a person cannot control themselves or is intellectually impaired in a way that impacts normal living should they be allowed to own a weapon? I think not. Not all disabilities warrant denial, however, anything that impedes a persons ability to think should be grounds for denial of gun ownership including prescriptions.

If a prescription is temporary then their restriction on gun ownership should be temporary covering the time on the medication and any post use time needed to flush it and its effects out of their system.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Someone with a history of violence and making threats is already banned from owning a firearm if it can be proven in a court of law.

Demanding every gun owner undergo mandatory mental health evaluation is a dangerous step. That's assuming them guilty until proven innocent and a huge violation of privacy. It's not a reasonable thing to ask, regardless of how well it might work, unless we are going to toss the idea of a free society as we currently enjoy it out the window.

Mandatory militia membership and physical fitness can't possibly be a requirement to own a gun. That would basically disarm the elderly and anyone less than fit. Anyone not mentally, emotionally or physically capable enough to be in the military would likewise be stripped of the 2A rights. And what would we do with hundreds of millions of folks in the military? Who would pay for that?

No, it's not assuming them guilty. It's us, as society, acknowledging a problem. It's us as society not blaming guns, but accepting ourselves for what we are.

Something's gotta give. Guns owners want reasonable solutions, that don't tread on rights, focusing on the problem is how we get there. The problem as I see it is two fold. Primarily the mental well being of those who want to to harm others, secondarily the ease of access to machines that make that very easy to do.

Your statements are widely inaccurate, and kinda read like someone emotional about the issue.

Myself, as an example, would not be able to serve in the military, but I would still qualify for gun ownership under the pretenses stated.

The militia requirement and elderly. Obviously, there can be an age limit. And if you cant make it to a monthly thing because youre old, then it's entirely pluasible for society to accept that and make that exception.

Just take a bit more time and think about this stuff. You seem smart enough to suss much of this out on your own.

Oh, and obligatory fuck your feels.

 

[BoomerD]

Repealed? Fuck no.

I DO wish there was a way to determine the actual intent of the amendment as written...particularly the bit about militias...DID they mean actual organized militia groups should be allowed to bear arms...or did they mean the general citizenry who could act as militias when needed...and have unfettered access to firearms?

Otherwise, the ONLY way I see to actually repeal that amendment would be a full-on revolution...and the gun grabbers seem to be overlooking one little point...the folks who support the 2nd amendment...will have most of the guns.

 

[nickqt]

Repealed? Fuck no.

I DO wish there was a way to determine the actual intent of the amendment as written...particularly the bit about militias...DID they mean actual organized militia groups should be allowed to bear arms...or did they mean the general citizenry who could act as militias when needed...and have unfettered access to firearms?

Otherwise, the ONLY way I see to actually repeal that amendment would be a full-on revolution...and the gun grabbers seem to be overlooking one little point...the folks who support the 2nd amendment...will have most of the guns.

Well, one quick note.

The "gun grabbers", which is just an apocalyptic wet dream of gun worshipers, would be using their "most guns" against a trained military.

 

[sactoking]

How do you think the vast majority of military members comes down on the subject of further restrictions to civilian gun ownership? Who do you think are some of the most staunch supporters of individual rights? Could it be the very folks who fight and die to defend those rights?

Irrelevant. The statement was made that the US is the world's policeman and the inference was made that that status is conferred and/or enhanced by the second amendment. All I did was point out that the second amendment has no bearing on the US military or its relative might so the inference was bogus. Spending trillions of dollars on carrier support groups is not connected to the second amendment.

That US service men and women generally support the rights granted under the second amendment is also irrelevant. If the second amendment didn't exist, ceterus paribus, would enlistment rates drop markedly? Are we to infer that post-service gun ownership is such a "perk" that without it enlistment rates would suffer? Am I to believe that pre-service gun ownership has such an affect on one's mentality and disposition that without it enlistment rates would suffer?

 

[compuwiz1]

Well, one quick note.

The "gun grabbers", which is just an apocalyptic wet dream of gun worshipers, would be using their "most guns" against a trained military.

There is a huge portion of the gun owning population that is trained military. Veterans come to mind...
So, if shit really ever hits the fan, probably not a good idea to overlook/under estimate what I just stated. And look, nobody really wants it to ever come to that. All I'm saying is that many folks are ready and know what they're doing, if it happens.

 

[TheVrolok]

I don't think we can have hard and fast laws that cover every situation correctly. That's why we have courts to decide when something is reasonable.

This trend in demanding more explicit and well defined laws is wrong, IMHO. It's better that laws clearly define the intent and what problem they are trying to solve. Determining what specifically is and isn't legal should be part of the interpretation process by the courts. Otherwise, we fall into the trap of zero tolerance laws that rob us of the ability to use our judgement, as exercised by our courts, other branches of the government and the democratic process. That means more instance of kids with gun shaped chicken nuggets being expelled for violating the technical terms of the school's zero tolerance gun free zone.

I absolutely agree, and I think that's part of what I'm getting at when I call the "mental health" component of the gun debate a canard.

 

[TheVrolok]

Allowing psychiatrists to strip individuals of their Constitutional rights without due process would never come back to bite us in the ass, right? /s

My point is exactly! The oversimplification some people call for is just silly.

 

[TheVrolok]

For instance, someone has history of violence, making threats, and a psychiatrist finds the patient has anger management problems, anxiety, depression. Probably not a good idea to give that person a firearm right now. Recommend treatment, and the patient can request a 2nd opinion from a different licensed professional.

Ok, so someone is diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder as a kid, can he get weapons when he's older? What is the definition of successful management in such a person? What if it's conduct disorder? Given the frequency with which people with these conditions have chronic lifelong problems, should they ever be allowed firearms? What if they've been diagnosed, but never actually violent? How about intermittent explosive disorder? Same deal? Well what about people without these disorders who make threats? Who determines how credible "violent threats" are?

What about someone with bipolar 1 or paranoid schizophrenia who has never actually been violent, but certainly has a higher risk of violent decompensation that someone who doesn't? Too risky for firearms?

How about someone diagnosed with early Parkinsonism? Maybe the tremors make handling firearms unsafe, or maybe we're worried they're developing Lewy Body Dementia and hallucinations could become an issue? What about other forms of dementia, frontotemporal dementia? At what stage should we lose firearms?

I could go on for hours (To Paladin's point).

 

[ch33zw1z]

Ok, so someone is diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder as a kid, can he get weapons when he's older? What is the definition of successful management in such a person? What if it's conduct disorder? Given the frequency with which people with these conditions have chronic lifelong problems, should they ever be allowed firearms? What if they've been diagnosed, but never actually violent? How about intermittent explosive disorder? Same deal? Well what about people without these disorders who make threats? Who determines how credible "violent threats" are?

What about someone with bipolar 1 or paranoid schizophrenia who has never actually been violent, but certainly has a higher risk of violent decompensation that someone who doesn't? Too risky for firearms?

How about someone diagnosed with early Parkinsonism? Maybe the tremors make handling firearms unsafe, or maybe we're worried they're developing Lewy Body Dementia and hallucinations could become an issue? What about other forms of dementia, frontotemporal dementia? At what stage should we lose firearms?

I could go on for hours (To Paladin's point).

Ok. I'm obviously not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but let's discuss. And it's not like I'm claiming this is a full proof plan, it's infallible, or not subject to additional information changing things. There's obviously a problem in our country with gun violence, glorification, etc...

First paragraph: are they allowed firearms now? Do we even screen or catch those disordered without noticeable signs? Answer is no. People aren't just randomly diagnosed with conduct disorders or ODD without a cause to even evaluate that person. With any of the examples, people aren't just randomly diagnosed.

If the individual can show that they can handle the responsibility that comes along with a machine designed to kill, then I'm ok with it. And that's something that is debateable, at what point is that. Not being a professional or trained psych*, I feel it's out of my depth to say.

Is that another irrational fear? That the state will misdiagnose people intentionally to reduce gun ownership below the estimated 1/4 of american ownership?

Next, the threats are credible because, as a society, we take people at their word. Mean what you say, say what you mean. People make threats, then there's consequences.

Next paragraph: bipolar 1: considering what the diagnosis entails, I would be very hesitant to issue a gun license to that person. Same goes for paranoid schizophrenic diagnosis. I don't think anyone with even the smallest bit of knowledge for these two issues would feel comfortable issuing gun licenses without more intensive vetting.

C'mon, Parkinson's? Why will they need a gun? Are they planning on joining the revolution? If someone in this scenario, which is terrible to begin with, has been as avid gun owner with no prior problems, I dont really see what the point of removing gun ownership would be.

But if someone with an end of life disease all of a sudden wants to own a gun, then again...very hesitant to the motivations.

You lose gun ownership when it's noticeable you're beginning to not really know what's going on around you. For anyone that's been involved with anything like that, they can attest it's not hard to notice.

 

[Genx87]

It's funny how no other country on earth has a weapons law generally construed as broadly as the second amendment and most of them seem to be doing fine from a "preventing governmental overreach" perspective.

They also lack the 1st and 4th amendment right we have in this country as well. I guess it depends what you consider govt overreach. Is jailing somebody over obvious satire govt overreach in your eyes?

 

[Genx87]

It's as though a politically engaged populace is it's own safeguard.

But you know, we need to grind ourselves 40-80hrs/wk so we can afford a decent TV to enjoy... at some point.

What job are you working that requires 80 hours a week to afford a decent TV?

 

[ch33zw1z]

What job are you working that requires 80 hours a week to afford a decent TV?

Family of four, two full-time employed parents at minimum wage.

80 hours a week, yea it's tough to splurge on a decent TV. Now try as a single parent

 

[TheVrolok]

Ok. I'm obviously not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but let's discuss. And it's not like I'm claiming this is a full proof plan, it's infallible, or not subject to additional information changing things. There's obviously a problem in our country with gun violence, glorification, etc...

First paragraph: are they allowed firearms now? Do we even screen or catch those disordered without noticeable signs? Answer is no. People aren't just randomly diagnosed with conduct disorders or ODD without a cause to even evaluate that person. With any of the examples, people aren't just randomly diagnosed.

Sure they're allowed firearms now, unless they're underage or have committed a crime which would otherwise disqualify them. We do not specifically screen any more than we screen for any other psychiatric disorder. Someone could be diagnosed with these conditions without having actually committed any violence/crimes. So again, are we taking rights away from people who are "at risk" for committing violence? If so, what other groups are "at risk?"

If the individual can show that they can handle the responsibility that comes along with a machine designed to kill, then I'm ok with it. And that's something that is debateable, at what point is that. Not being a professional or trained psych*, I feel it's out of my depth to say.

Define "handle the responsibility" in granular terms. As you've mentioned, that's a fairly vague target.

Is that another irrational fear? That the state will misdiagnose people intentionally to reduce gun ownership below the estimated 1/4 of american ownership?

An irrational fear that mental health could be used to create a second class of citizenry? I don't think so. Look at the history of institutionalization and then backlash of deinstitutionalization in our country.

Next, the threats are credible because, as a society, we take people at their word. Mean what you say, say what you mean. People make threats, then there's consequences.

Do we? Look at half the shit Ted Nugent has said in his life, has anyone taken away his guns?

Next paragraph: bipolar 1: considering what the diagnosis entails, I would be very hesitant to issue a gun license to that person. Same goes for paranoid schizophrenic diagnosis. I don't think anyone with even the smallest bit of knowledge for these two issues would feel comfortable issuing gun licenses without more intensive vetting.

Why? Just because one has either diagnosis, does not mean he or she has ever been violent. There are certainly people who do not have these diagnoses who have been violent (though perhaps not criminally?) in the past who still have rights to firearms. There are some very high functioning schizophrenics and certainly those with BPD out there that you probably don't know carry the diagnoses in your day to day interactions. Define "intensive vetting" in granular terms.

C'mon, Parkinson's? Why will they need a gun? Are they planning on joining the revolution? If someone in this scenario, which is terrible to begin with, has been as avid gun owner with no prior problems, I dont really see what the point of removing gun ownership would be.

Why not? Home defense, hobby shooting, etc. For the same reasons one without the disease spectrum would. Should they lose the right because they have a medical condition? If so, at what stage? With which diagnoses? You've already said you think those with SCPT/BPD should not have access to firearms without at least "intensive vetting," but what about someone with a Parkinson spectrum disorder, something like I mentioned Lewy Body Dementia who can have some features which are common (hallucinations, prefrontal inhibition, etc.).

You lose gun ownership when it's noticeable you're beginning to not really know what's going on around you. For anyone that's been involved with anything like that, they can attest it's not hard to notice.

That's my point, it's almost impossible to create a clear delineation, so what's the point in even having the discussion?

What I'm saying, again overall, here.. is that you're oversimplifying a lot of this and it's not remotely "clear and clean" enough to write any number of laws to delineate who should and should not have firearms based on "mental health conditions" or other medical problems. It's a red herring.