3 ms·

Its only modern purpose is to enable mass shootings and support gun owners pride.

• rayiner 8y ago
  Is 1971 “modern?” That’s when my home country had to fight for its independence from Pakistan by stealing guns from the other side. Having a Second Amendment would’ve saved a lot of lives. We do not live in a time past the end of history. Killing people has always been the last but necessary recourse in protecting freedom and self determination. A disarmed populace is free only at the whim of the people with arms.
• AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  It isn't about pride, it's about self-determination, a concept deeply rooted in American culture. Part of being responsible for one's self is being responsible for one's own defense. Lord knows the police are not fast enough, or brave enough for that matter, to protect us anyway. Americans look at the kind of thing that happened in France, where people waited to be executed in a theater, and they say to themselves "I'll go down fighting, thanks". Whether that's a realistic thing to prepare for or not, that is the mindset. We have a significant aversion to being helpless and relying on the state.
  • madeofpalk 8y ago
    Citizens of other countries, who don't have such a weird constitutional attachment to gun ownership, don't have the concept of self-determination?
    • LyndsySimon 8y ago
      I would argue that this is exactly the case. The governments of other countries are generally based on the concept that they decide what their citizens may do. The US federal government is based on the concept that they decide what citizens may not do, and the Bill of Rights is designed to set limits on even that "negative" power. The Second Amendment does not apply to citizens. None of the BoR do; they are restrictions on governmental power.