First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply What's Your Opinion on Firearms and/or The 2nd Amendment?
16598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / NC
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. -Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Jefferson

And my personal favorite
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee,

I think we know what the framers wanted
15259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/23/15 , edited 3/23/15
The second amendment has no place in any modern developed country (USA or otherwise). Now when it was added to the constitution in 1791, there were reasons for its existence. The 13 colonies (which eventually became the USA) did not have a standing professional army like Britain or France instead the USA had citizen-soldiers who would be called up in times of war to defend their country from invasion. As a result the civilian population needed access to firearms. However, this did not last as regular professional army units were created leaving the US with a standing armed force like every other country. However, the country was still a frontier nation with various peoples advancing westwards (which was actually dangerous) so guns were still required. However, for over one century America has not been a frontier nation at all but rather an urban industrial society. As the threat of invasion has long since passed and the frontiers domesticated there is no real constitutional need for everyone to own a gun.

The argument that a gun is needed for protection is just plain weird, I hate to break it to you but criminals are not interested in killing you and your family they just want your TV. That is of corse if you are even in to begin with. You are more likely to kill you friends, family or yourself with that gun than any criminal.
Another case for the second amendment stems from the argument that it is needed to stop a government from becoming too tyrannical over it citizens. The argument goes that in this scenario the ordinary citizens are supposed to rise up and overthrow said tyrannical government. In the 18th and early 19th century this would have "worked" (in that it was feasible) as ordinary citizens could raise an army that was on a similar level to the government. Muskets and swords could be acquired as a result of the second amendment (and factors such as high levels of hunting). Horses could be secured as the country was an agrarian society the only difficult task would be acquiring cannons. However, any citizen "army" would be decimated by US regular forces. An average Joe with a pistol or semi-automatic rifle is no match for a professionally trained serviceman armed with a fully automatic assault rifle, body armour, explosives, modern communication and how to use it with proficiency. This situation becomes a comedy when attack helicopters, tanks, fighter-Jets, drones and an array of armoured vehicles are thrown into the mix.

This does not include all the gun crime, massacres, police paranoia and various other consequences that come with handing out guns is if they were smarties.
51413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
It's funny how British people always say they don't understand the second amendment when they're the reason it exists in the first place. The founding fathers just escaped from a tyrannical king so they put in measures to make sure their new government doesn't become the same as Britain's. If it ever came to that, it would be the citizens that fight back and put the government in its place.

It's like people who constantly bash on the second amendment conveniently forget that the American Revolutionary War ever happened. Context is important when trying to examine the meaning of anything.
15768 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Virginia USA
Online
Posted 3/23/15
I'll keep this short and simple. I believe it's a right. I believe it should exist. I like to shoot guns and go to firing ranges for the skill and fun of it, etc. I also believe too many people who exercise that right are douchenozzles and guns are way too easy to acquire illegally and not enough people in the USA are trained in gun safety properly.
16267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Norway, Oslo
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
In a place with so much mental illness and class difference, owning a gun is not a good idea.
17767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
uh, yeah. i guess gun ownership for protection is kinda like life insurance, 99% will never use it.
gun ownership for fun is another matter. .22 rifles are hellla fun, and owing an origonal functional tompson sub machine gun is a reason all its own.
as for the second ammedment, its obsolete.
on the other hand, current gun restrictions run contrary to the intent of the second ammendment.
the whole second ammendment/gun control issue is stupid. choose one and let be done with it.
besides, gun control laws are only useful for the law abiding citizens, so its intent is pretty much useless.
23206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Long Island
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
As long as criminals have ways to get guns, I want to be able to have one to protect my home and family. I don't care about the fun aspect of it or having a collection, I just don't want to be defenseless if and when I'm ever on the receiving end of a break in.
16456 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Baltimore
Offline
Posted 3/23/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

It's funny how British people always say they don't understand the second amendment when they're the reason it exists in the first place. The founding fathers just escaped from a tyrannical king so they put in measures to make sure their new government doesn't become the same as Britain's. If it ever came to that, it would be the citizens that fight back and put the government in its place.

It's like people who constantly bash on the second amendment conveniently forget that the American Revolutionary War ever happened. Context is important when trying to examine the meaning of anything.


They might not understand because the United Kingdom does not have a written Constitution. The British constitution is the accumulated body of laws passed by Parliament along with customary laws. They might not understand how our government works in the same way we might not know how the German or Norwegian governments work. I can understand that a foreign member not appreciating how legally difficult it is to amend the constitution, or that stripping an amendment from the Bill of Rights would be unthinkable.

A total firearm ban I do not believe is in the founding spirit of the United States. Nor do i think it fits comfortably within the tradition of classic liberalism our constitution represents. Freedom, in America is not unlimited. Freedom of speech is limited by the "clear and present danger" clause, along with protections against obscenity. I support limited restrictions on specific types of guns and ammo. I support background checks. A ban on exploding bullets or automatic rifles is, to me, within the same spirit as banning child pornography, a restriction on free speech. A total ban is not something I would ever support.
dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/23/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

It's funny how British people always say they don't understand the second amendment when they're the reason it exists in the first place. The founding fathers just escaped from a tyrannical king so they put in measures to make sure their new government doesn't become the same as Britain's. If it ever came to that, it would be the citizens that fight back and put the government in its place.

It's like people who constantly bash on the second amendment conveniently forget that the American Revolutionary War ever happened. Context is important when trying to examine the meaning of anything.


Don't mind us too much were basically the political equivalent of your mother attempting to get you to put on that extra layer of clothing because its a bit chilly outside.
15259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/23/15 , edited 3/23/15
PhantomGundam wrote:


The founding fathers just escaped from a tyrannical king so they put in measures to make sure their new government doesn't become the same as Britain's. If it ever came to that, it would be the citizens that fight back and put the government in its place.


I seriously doubt the average American civilian has any effective counter measures against large numbers of drones, tanks, attack helicopters, jet aircraft or 1.3 professionally trained active servicemen. Face it, an armed uprising would be crushed by the government.


It's like people who constantly bash on the second amendment conveniently forget that the American Revolutionary War ever happened. Context is important when trying to examine the meaning of anything.


you are absolutely correct so, here is what the founding fathers had in mind: an unrifled, single shot flintlock musket.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 3/23/15 , edited 3/23/15

Voc666IV wrote:


PhantomGundam wrote:


The founding fathers just escaped from a tyrannical king so they put in measures to make sure their new government doesn't become the same as Britain's. If it ever came to that, it would be the citizens that fight back and put the government in its place.


I seriously doubt the average American civilian has any effective counter measures against large numbers of drones, tanks, attack helicopters, jet aircraft or 1.3 professionally trained active servicemen. Face it, an armed uprising would be crushed by the government.


It's like people who constantly bash on the second amendment conveniently forget that the American Revolutionary War ever happened. Context is important when trying to examine the meaning of anything.


you are absolutely correct so, here is what the founding fathers had in mind, an unrifled, single shot flintlock musket.






One thing you need to take into account is if there is ever a civil war how many soldiers would follow orders and fight against their fellow country men. While I agree that there would much damage I also believe thousands if not hundred of thousands of soldiers would flat out refuse to turn their guns on civilians.
18010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/23/15

Kieran-kun wrote:

Well as an Englishman we don't have firearms.

I don't feel the need for them and countries that have disowned them (Australia) have had fantastic results in terms of crime.

If I'm honest the ENTIRE argument surrounding the 2nd amendment perplexes me.... it's called an "AMENDMENT" it can be amended, changed and altered by the very definition of that it says.

America abolished slavery and nothing bad happened if people genuinely thing they think doing the same for firearms will do cause heaps of problems then frankly they're delusional.

That's just my opinion anyway


That is the exact reason the first 10 Amendments have been rewritten into something known as the Bill Of Rights. This Bill consists of 10 inalienable rights that apply to each and every American Citizen. So no they can not be "amended"
15259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/23/15 , edited 3/23/15

J-POP187 wrote:


Voc666IV wrote:


PhantomGundam wrote:


The founding fathers just escaped from a tyrannical king so they put in measures to make sure their new government doesn't become the same as Britain's. If it ever came to that, it would be the citizens that fight back and put the government in its place.


I seriously doubt the average American civilian has any effective counter measures against large numbers of drones, tanks, attack helicopters, jet aircraft or 1.3 professionally trained active servicemen. Face it, an armed uprising would be crushed by the government.


It's like people who constantly bash on the second amendment conveniently forget that the American Revolutionary War ever happened. Context is important when trying to examine the meaning of anything.


you are absolutely correct so, here is what the founding fathers had in mind, an unrifled, single shot flintlock musket.


One thing you need to take into account is if there is ever a civil war how many soldiers would follow orders and fight against their fellow country men. While I agree that there would much damage I also believe thousands if not hundred of thousands of soldiers would flat out refuse to turn their guns on civilians.


You'd be surprised how obedient soldiers when carrying out questionable orders on their "fellow countrymen" or civilians especially when they are "terrorists" "threats to national security" "Un-American" "a threat to liberty" or in the words of Frederick the great "If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army"
5333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
In response to Nemoskull and Voc666... We are all entitled to our opinions on this subject but I question which country you hail from and which country you currently reside. To say the 2nd amendment is obsolete is to say ALL of the constitution and Bill of rights are obsolete. IF thats the case and your an American citizen I would suggest that you voicing your opinion on the matter is thanks to the first amendment and if its obsolete... why are you exercising it? I am truly troubled by anyone who thinks any part of the cornerstone of this great nation I call home is obsolete. To say as much is to spit in the face of every man, woman, or child who lost their life in the persuit of freedom, and happiness in the United States of America. Further more as a patriot and formerly USMC I take personal offense at this notion. Lastly the 2nd amendment cannot be overruled or removed. This is due to the very clear language used "Shall not be infringed." The language used here has never been debated, its absolute in nature.

16598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / NC
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
You must remember, the US armed forces swear to uphold the constitution, not the whims of tyrants. The military traditonally has a very low aproval of the president and his action. Where any orders given to attack native US soil or citizens, many would refuses, including many officers that would refuse to give such orders to their men.
As for equipment, Body Armor? We've got it. Automatic fire isn't neccesarily essential, our ARs and AKs are hardly any differnent from theirs. The armored vehicles would be a problem, but we know from the Middle East, IEDs can be quite effective. The US military, along with other major countrys' militaries, have always had trouble with guerilla forces. Not to mention our population includes a very large amount of veterens with plenty of experiance, and of all the forces likely to retain upholding the constitution, our special forces groups would be very likely to be on the side of the people.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.