8 ms·

I’m an American and I think we should revoke the 2nd amendment. Who wants to live in a guns first society?

falcolas 4y ago
As someone who lives around bears, mountain lions, and wolves (in the US), guns are a reasonable thing to have available. I’ve personally run across all three of those without leaving my local urban area. Mind you, I’m thinking of hunting rifles and revolvers generally, not assault rifles.
- realitysballs 4y ago
  What is more dangerous, a random stranger with a gun or a bear? Can you conceive of a way to live in proximity to these animals without a firearm? Would our country be better off if the average citizen did not have such easy access to guns & ammunition?
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > What is more dangerous, a random stranger with a gun or a bear? So far, neither has harmed (major or minor) me or my extended family in any way. And I live within a few miles of places where people regularly hunt; in a deep red state with a long history of hunting and trapping and carrying firearms (open, concealed, and in vehicles). Which one has come closer to being dangerous to me and mine? A bear. I've been at more risk of being mauled by a bear (driving down a road on an ATV and ending up between a mama and her cub) than being shot (haven't noticed a gun being pointed in my direction, no mass shootings within several hundred miles of my home). And bears, if you're near their territory, are damned dangerous. They're wild animals who love to come into our places because we have free food (our trash). Bear spray, a long touted alternative, doesn't work on an angry bear. It doesn't even always work on an angry human. > Can you conceive of a way to live in proximity to these animals without a firearm? Not without sacrificing lives or property. Wild animals don't respect fences and property lines. And they regularly threaten people, pets, and livestock. Additionally, IMO, a bullet is kinder than poison (which is what the Bureau of Wildlife Management uses). > Would our country be better off if the average citizen did not have such easy access to guns & ammunition? Hunting rifles and revolvers (as I called out in my original message)? I don't believe so. And my position is based on US history, where we've had access to these kinds of firearms for centuries. Assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols? An unambiguous yes.
midoridensha 4y ago
>Who wants to live in a guns first society? Roughly half the voters in America, which is why it's not going to change any time soon.
readthenotes1 4y ago
certainly not any tyrant!
- yongjik 4y ago
  Why would you think that? Tyrants love gullible people with guns. Stir up the trouble, dispose of opponents while keeping your hands clean, make people cry for law and order (so that you can enter the stage as their savior), and when all is said and done, send them to gulag or something.
obarthelemy 4y ago
Don't revoke it, just apply it: "well-regulated militia". Regulate, then !
- polotics 4y ago
  Totally agree. Anyone who wants to carry should by virtue of the 2nd amendment, commit to at least one weekly all-day all-night training in the militia training center of their state. This is how I understand the meaning of the amendment. Also make yourself available for militia work as needed by your state on ~15 minutes notice
  - pseudo0 4y ago
    Every male US citizen between 17 and 45 is a member of the militia. Free ammunition, firearms and training is a great idea! It would be a bit silly to hold the militia to a higher standard than professional military though, and they typically do annual qualifications. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
    - polotics 4y ago
      Well members of the military are not allowed to roam about freely with concealed weapons, so yes obviously the militia has to be held to an higher standard!

As someone who lives around bears, mountain lions, and wolves (in the US), guns are a reasonable thing to have available. I’ve personally run across all three of those without leaving my local urban area. Mind you, I’m thinking of hunting rifles and revolvers generally, not assault rifles.

realitysballs 4y ago
What is more dangerous, a random stranger with a gun or a bear? Can you conceive of a way to live in proximity to these animals without a firearm? Would our country be better off if the average citizen did not have such easy access to guns & ammunition?
- falcolas 4y ago
  > What is more dangerous, a random stranger with a gun or a bear? So far, neither has harmed (major or minor) me or my extended family in any way. And I live within a few miles of places where people regularly hunt; in a deep red state with a long history of hunting and trapping and carrying firearms (open, concealed, and in vehicles). Which one has come closer to being dangerous to me and mine? A bear. I've been at more risk of being mauled by a bear (driving down a road on an ATV and ending up between a mama and her cub) than being shot (haven't noticed a gun being pointed in my direction, no mass shootings within several hundred miles of my home). And bears, if you're near their territory, are damned dangerous. They're wild animals who love to come into our places because we have free food (our trash). Bear spray, a long touted alternative, doesn't work on an angry bear. It doesn't even always work on an angry human. > Can you conceive of a way to live in proximity to these animals without a firearm? Not without sacrificing lives or property. Wild animals don't respect fences and property lines. And they regularly threaten people, pets, and livestock. Additionally, IMO, a bullet is kinder than poison (which is what the Bureau of Wildlife Management uses). > Would our country be better off if the average citizen did not have such easy access to guns & ammunition? Hunting rifles and revolvers (as I called out in my original message)? I don't believe so. And my position is based on US history, where we've had access to these kinds of firearms for centuries. Assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols? An unambiguous yes.

midoridensha 4y ago

>Who wants to live in a guns first society? Roughly half the voters in America, which is why it's not going to change any time soon.

readthenotes1 4y ago

certainly not any tyrant!

yongjik 4y ago
Why would you think that? Tyrants love gullible people with guns. Stir up the trouble, dispose of opponents while keeping your hands clean, make people cry for law and order (so that you can enter the stage as their savior), and when all is said and done, send them to gulag or something.

obarthelemy 4y ago

Don't revoke it, just apply it: "well-regulated militia". Regulate, then !

polotics 4y ago
Totally agree. Anyone who wants to carry should by virtue of the 2nd amendment, commit to at least one weekly all-day all-night training in the militia training center of their state. This is how I understand the meaning of the amendment. Also make yourself available for militia work as needed by your state on ~15 minutes notice
- pseudo0 4y ago
  Every male US citizen between 17 and 45 is a member of the militia. Free ammunition, firearms and training is a great idea! It would be a bit silly to hold the militia to a higher standard than professional military though, and they typically do annual qualifications. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
  - polotics 4y ago
    Well members of the military are not allowed to roam about freely with concealed weapons, so yes obviously the militia has to be held to an higher standard!