What are your views on the 2nd Amendment and the constitution as a whole?

1. 72

   Michael Loranzanposted 24 months ago

   What are your views on the 2nd Amendment and the constitution as a whole?
   
   Do you think the 2nd Amendment was written just for the time period it was written in? and do you think there could ever actually be a gun ban in the United States of America?

   replyreport
2. 94

   Zelkiiroposted 24 months ago

   The Founding Fathers could have never anticipated machine guns or sniper rifles that can hit a dime from half a mile away, nor could they have ever foreseen a future where people were wealthy enough to own more than one single, solitary, horribly inaccurate gun--clearly the 2nd Amendment needs some limitations. Anything more than a single pistol and a single hunting rifle per adult (without an exceedingly-good goddamn reason) is too much.

   replyreport
3. 72

   Johnny James Aposted 24 months ago

   I do believe the 2nd amendment was written for the time period it was written in due to how the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment came about.  The founding fathers could have easily just said, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and made this an absolute statement without debate.  Instead, they listed the portion of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" to start of the amendment. Additionally, the 2nd amendment has had a lot of historical debate as to whether the states ratified the same exact wording of the amendment which came from Congress, and some historians say some states actually ratified more than one version of the second amendment as they were not sure which one was correct.  This is why the argument on the second amendment came down to a "comma" when the Supreme Ct finally made their decision on second amendment rights.  They stated that the way it was written allowed for the right of citizens to bare arms, however that right was not absolute.  They dismissed the theory that the right to totally unencumbered gun access hinged on the need for a well -regulated militia do to the punctuation of the amendment.  Some argued that the writing of the time did allow for additional oxford commas and additional non-oxford commas which were never meant to change the meaning of a phrase, however, without more information the ct could not change the plain language of the document.  However, I believe the founding fathers really just wanted citizens to bare arms as the US did not have a large standing army at the time, and would need states to round up additional militias if another war broke out.  This is something we do not need today with the U.S. military.

   replyreport
4. 91

   tamarawilhiteposted 24 months ago

   If you have the right to life, you have a right to defend that life from would be rapists and murderers. Only a gun allows a woman or child to have an equal chance against an attacker, versus martial arts or knives that give the bigger, stronger person an advantage.
   The second amendment also reflects the right of the people to protect themselves from unacceptable intrusions of the state and demands. You see the inverse in Shariah law, where Christians and Jews that pay the jizya still aren't allowed to own weapons - so they are unable to fight back when the Muslim leaders levy a head tax and take one out of every five boys or kill someone who cannot pay the jizya and won't convert to Islam. And you can't defend your property from would be thieves or those who impose on you.
   When you cannot defend your life or property, you are beholden to the state - which is what tyrants want.

   replyreport
5. 32

   bradmasterOCcalposted 24 months ago

   If people don't like the constitution or its amendments including the 2nd, then they have the ability to repeal, or change the amendment.
   As to the 2nd amendment, over 99% of the gun owners are law abiding. Half of the gun deaths are from suicides, And no one has hit a dime at any distance, so why is that an issue.
   
   Why are they as adamant about deaths from alcohol and tobacco?
   A handful of terrorists make a successful hijacking of planes, and now everyone is treated like a terrorist. Except, the race which has the most terrorist acts in the US is protected by the PC as being racist by looking at them before they act.
   
   Do we stop selling vehicles even though the statistics tell us that there will be deaths caused by people driving under influence? Of course not, but the same logic applies to gun ownership.
   
   A gun control law that does background checks is already in existence. There is no way that the government can ban guns and guarantee that there will be no more killings from guns, or even that there will be a reduction in killings from guns.
   
   Prohibition didn't work for Alcohol, and drinkers were not going to kill you, not intentionally. Ban guns and the criminals have another illegal product to push.
   
   Why don't people ask how the War on Drugs is going?
   The point is that criminals are people, and their instruments of crime are just that instruments. These instruments in the hands of non criminals are not going to be lethal, except occasionally
   from negligent use.
   
   Enforce the laws we have instead of adding more laws that will also be ignored or sloppy in their enforcement.

   replyreport
   1. 32

      bradmasterOCcalposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you Michael.

      replyreport
   2. 72

      Michael Loranzanposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      No problem.

      replyreport