Well, if you read it, it says the right of the people to bear arms in order to maintain a militia. I don't think we have any need for a militia with how big the military is.It is a violation of our constitution.
The founding document of this country.
It expresses the limits of our government ( or is supposed to) While spelling out our rights and freedoms.
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Well-Mannered Politics Thread
- Thread starter usmccharles
- Start date
- Status
K-Dog
MVP
Fully automatic guns are already banned.
Handguns have removable magazines too. Should they be banned as well? Even though ( as far as I know ) they can not be fully auto?
K-Dog
MVP
Unless it is the military we are up against....
Either way that doesn't nullify the amendment.
and yes I read it, thank you.
Tank
Hall of Famer
They are banned but all of those mentioned are sold as semi automatic/single shot. As we’ve seen they can easily be altered to auto. Handguns aren’t rifles, much less assault rifles.
K-Dog
MVP
So, not to argue, but to clarify, you want to ban a gun simply because of it is *able* to be modified?
Inqui
Pro Bowler
YES!
But in all seriousness, the amendment was written with the militia in mind. The colonial Americans wanted to be able to defend themselves again if they ever faced another situation of tyranny like they did with Great Britain. They were concerned with the rights to bear arms as it pertained to a standing militia to be able to defend the country. They were not concerned with the every day citizen having a gun for home protection or for hunting. Furthermore, when the amendment was written, it took like a minute to reload a single round for a very experienced soldier.
I particularly love how conservatives are so much about how the constitution is exactly what it says, until it comes to the second amendment because we can use a little bit of interpretation for that.
K-Dog
MVP
So freedom of press is just about ye ol' printing press right?
K-Dog
MVP
cobrajet
Hall of Famer
I am a fourth amendment guy myself and there is way more different interpretations of that one. I had to learn to make it my best friend.
Last edited:
balfan23
MVP
I am not a gun owner. However, I don't begrudge anyone who feels they want to own a weapon for the purposes of protection. I also have to admit that if things start to go the way of rampant lawlessness (which is unfortunately not hard to imagine) where the police will have no way of protecting the population, I will be hard pressed to not to feel the need to protect myself and my family.
Tank
Hall of Famer
No. I think it a good idea to ban everyday sales of a gun that is designed to be used as a tactical assault weapon rather than used for hunting or home defense. I fully understand that any gun could be used in an assault, hard for me to rationalize that a weapon designed to be used in warfare is needed for hunting or home defense.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
For sure, people still have access to high-powered weapons and will continue to do so. A couple of weeks ago police here raided "multiple" meth houses (which were also filled with illegal firearms) in my town alone, and there's still a strong black market for them in places like North Melbourne and other places where tighter laws exist - and there are knives and vehicles and other ways to kill lots of people.
But the point is that with sensible restrictions (and I've already addressed the question of practicality, which means the topic becomes a question of what policies can and should be introduced), people have to work harder to get hold of them, so the actual impact is that they become a lethal nuisance and not much more. Despite the presence of illegal guns here, the weapon of choice for cretins robbing corner shops and the like is still a baseball bat more often than not because they're still that much harder to get, nefarious intent or not. If someone does so much as flash a gun at a police officer, that legitimately makes national news for the day. And there's no way a bloke with a knife could kill 50 people. 9/11 was (thankfully) a once-in-a-lifetime event that shouldn't really factor into gun control discussions - that's essentially a sunk cost that you have either way. So while people can still get hold of illegal firearms or use other weapons despite the presence of tougher gun restrictions, the actual damage to society is still seriously reduced (which gets shown in the international stats that emerge every time there's a mass shooting).
Which goes back to @The Raven 's question, of whether having the unbridled right to have almost any kind of firearm you want is worth the cost of being the only country in the developed world to average nearly a mass shooting a day. That answer will be different for different people, but like I said on the previous page I genuinely hope my country never gives out such a right.
BloodRaven
Pro Bowler
Im a gun owner but even I understand that we pay a heavy price for that right, anyway theres no point trying to impliment gun control in a country that has more guns than people I think we're way past that point. I love firing assault rifles but with that said I dont know why civilians need them, theyre not designed for hunting or self defense theyre designed to kill people quickly.
cobrajet
Hall of Famer
I agree with BloodRaven, I also don’t know why a person would need to have a weapon like an AK47. We could go start banning assault rifles, unfortunately there is so many already floating around, what do you do about them? It wouldn’t seem fair for the people that legally purchased them, to put a high tax on those owners that wanted to keep them. If the government ever banned ownership of weapons like that, the only fair thing would be to buy them back at the current market value. I would suspect many of those owners would not be happy being forced to give back their assault weapons and many would probably say, “come try and take them” and there is no way I am volunteering to help the government do that.
I am also in favor of strict background checks and waiting periods. I never felt comfortable with people giving money at gun shows and walking away with a firearm. That seems way to easy to me, and ultimately very unsafe.
Last edited:
Inqui
Pro Bowler
I think an outright ban (including a confiscation of current ones) would be near impossible like you say. If I were made emperor and implementing a policy like that, I'd be looking more at a ban of new sales coupled with a buyback. It'd be similar to the UK, France and China with their petrol car ban in 2040 or whenever - people will still be allowed to own petrol cars but every factory-new car from that stage will have to be electric. The intent would be more about turning off the supply tap and letting them phase themselves out of the market over time (so when someone's AK47 or whatever else is getting phased out packs it in they can't just roll up to Top Gun Supply or Bloodbath and Beyond and get a new one).
Sure there'd still be a black market and all, but supply and demand are strong forces and if anyone wants to obtain one illegally they'd have to spend big, so you'd still see a huge decrease. The other point from an economics perspective would be that you can treat it as a fiscal stimulus. If Trump's smart and wants to jump-start economic growth in a way that affects his main voter base (as opposed to the standard playbook approach of giving tax breaks to the top 1% or so, who tend to stash their extra money away in Luxembourg anyway) and has scope for bipartisan support, that's something he should look at.
The Raven
Veteran
Maybe they have those bodyguards to protect them from the crazies with the guns. It's not a fucking difficult concept. They are a body GUARD. GUARD. A GUARD. Do you know what a GUARD is? Do you know what the verb GUARD means? Jesus fucking Christ. Of all the moronic conservative talking points, the notion that wealthy liberals are hypocrites for having armed guards is one of the dumbest and worst. Like, hello! They have guards to protect them from the many people with guns that hate celebrities. It wouldn't be a necessity if we didn't have more guns that people. Jesus Christ.
People tried this rhetoric against Obama. "Oh, Obama's a hypocrite. He's guarded by men with guns." Yeah, because presidents have been SHOT before. Reagan? JFK? Lincoln? Ringing any bells? Maybe presidents are protected by armed guards because presidents have been KILLED before by men with guns.
And to really bring this point home, I must remind you all that Lincoln, JFK, and Reagan were likely under protection from the best trained armed guards we had -- and they still got shot. Two of them died. And yet, nobody sees a goddamn problem. And yet, it's hypocritical for people to have armed guards.
Also, because I'm feeling feisty now, the second amendment hasn't ever and doesn't now allow average citizens the right to bear arms. "It being necessary to preserve a well-armed militia..." Hmm. Anyone here join any militias lately? I'm thinking about joining the one down the street. Can anyone tell me what it's like?
BloodRaven
Pro Bowler
I like the voluntary buyback idea, I dont know if the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists would go for it but some will realize that its unecessary to own these weapons for private use. From what Ive heard the buyback in Australia worked well and they havent had a mass shooting in 20 years.
Last edited:
- Status